file: fox93.html
collected by: dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us
Scott.Griffith@eng.sun.com
5 Jan 1993
Subject: Re: EEC-IV Diagnostics-- How?
On Jan 4, Joseph Edward Huesmann wrote:
> I understand that the engine computer of the Mustang can be accessed, and
> that error codes can be obtained in the Ford H-manual, but how are the
> codes accessed? Do you need some kind of computer? Is it difficult? I'm
> not really interested in tuning my engine (right now), just in the error
> codes. Thanks for any help!
Nope, you just need a piece of wire, and maybe a voltmeter if your car
has no Check Engine light.
Ok- here's the scoop on EEC-IV quick tests. There are two tests you
can do- the Key-On, Engine Off test (KOEO), and the Key-On, Engine
Running (KOER). Of the two, the KOEO test is probably most interesting
to you. In order to run either test, the car has to be fully warmed up
to operating temperature, and the car must be in neutral (both these
steps are critical, or the only codes you will get will be the codes
for "coolant too cold" and "transmission not in neutral". Also make
sure that the heater and A/C are off, or you'll get the code for "AC
is on", which is the same as the code for "tranny not in neutral"...
To run the tests, you must locate the EEC-IV test connectors. In the
late model Mustang, these are in the engine compartment, right in
front of the driver's side hood hinge. There are two connectors of
interest- one is a 6-pin connector, and the other is a single pin
connector. Both use 1/4" quick disconnect-style terminals, so you'll
probably want to make yourself a jumper about 8" long with a 1/4" male
QD terminal on each end, if you mean to do this often. Otherwise, any
random chunk of wire will do.
Here's the pinout for the EEC-IV connector, looking at it from the
working side (looking into the female terminals). Note that only these
three pins may actually have terminals in them- the other positions
may be empty:
Signal Return
|
V
_________________
/ ___ ___ \
/ \
| ___ ___ ___ ___ |
|___________________|
^ ^
| |
STO FP test
The left pin in the center group of 4 pins is the Self Test Output pin
(STO). The single terminal hanging loose is the Self Test Input pin
(STI). To run the test, you must either have a Check Engine light, or
hook up an analog voltmeter. If you have the Check Engine light, just
watch it during the tests- it will flash the codes. Otherwise, hook up
your voltmeter between the positive terminal of the battery, and the
STO pin above- you'll count its needle sweeps to get the codes. The FP
test pin, when grounded, runs the fuel pump continuously- but that's
just FYI. You won't deal with that pin for these tests.
To enable the KOEO test, connect your wire jumper between the STI pin
(dangling off by itself) and the Signal Return pin above. Then, turn
the ignition on, but don't crank the starter- the EEC-IV will enter
the KOEO test. During this test, 5 things will happen.
First, you'll hear a bunch of clicking for a few seconds as the EEC-IV
exercises its valves and actuators, and takes readings from its
sensors.
Second, if you're using a voltmeter, you'll see a series of very fast
pulses go by- they may register a volt or two. These are the "fast
codes" that the real STAR scan testers use, but they go by too fast
(100x the normal scan rate) to be of any use to us. If you're
watching the Check Engine light, you won't see anything.
Third, you'll get the on-demand codes- these indicate what the EEC box
has found problems with _at the moment of the test_. They will be
presented to you as either flashes of the CE light, or sweeps of the
needle on the voltmeter. The code 21 would be presented as
flash-flash, pause, flash. The on-demand codes will be presented
twice- if the EEC-IV has found nothing wrong, it will give you code
11, twice:
flash, pause, flash, longer pause, flash, pause, flash.
The flashes and pauses for a given digit are each 1/2 second. The
longer pause between digits are 4 seconds. The longer still pauses
between codes are 6-9 seconds. If you'd like to see a code just to
see what they look like, leave the trans in gear (MT) or drive (AT),
or push in the clutch- and you'll get code 67 repeated twice. If there
is more than one code detected, they will be presented in sequence,
twice: 22, 47, 22, 47.
Fourth, you'll get the separator code. The Ford manuals call this code
10, but you can't see the _absence_ of a pulse for the 0- you'll just
see a 6-to-9 second pause after the last "on-demand" code, then a
singe flash.
Fifth, you'll get the "continuous" codes- these are the codes that the
EEC-IV has stored in its non-volatile memory from events that have
occurred while you were driving in the past. Another 6-to-9 second
pause after the separator code, and you'll get another sequence of
2-digit codes that will look exactly like the on-demand codes. If all
is well, you'll once again see 11,11.
So for example- if at some point in the past your throttle position
sensor has wigged out while driving, you'll get a 23 in the continuous
codes. If it's still wigged out at the time you start the test,
you'll see it as a 23 in both the on-demand and continuous codes.
Pretty simple, _very_ powerful. Unquestionably your friend. Learn to
use this tool.
To do the KOER test, set the car up as above. Then with the
STI/sig-return jumper disconnected, start up and run it at 2000 RPM or
so for two minutes, to thoroughly warm up the EGO sensors and get
everything stable. Shut down, reconnect the jumper, and immediately
restart, and the EEC-IV will go into the KOER test.
Several things will happen. The first is that you'll get the engine ID
code- 2 pulses for a 4-cylinder, 3 pulses for a 6, and 4 for a V8.
Then the EEC-IV will begin playing with its actuators and sensors,
trying to fool them into going to the extremes of their ranges. During
this interval the car will run very poorly at times- it may go rich,
lean, stumble, buck, and do all manner of unpleasant things. This will
last from 6 to 20 seconds.
After this interval, the motor will smooth out and begin an even idle.
You will then see a single flash or sweep of the needle. This is the
Dynamic Response code, which is your cue. After this code, you have 10
seconds to snap the throttle wide open, just long enough to get above
2000 RPM. Once the engine gets above 2000 RPM (it won't take long at
WOT with no load!), release the throttle, and let the engine go back
to idle. This part is lovingly called the "goose test". The EEC-IV
needs to see what happens at high throttle settings to make sure all
of its sensors and actuators work properly, so you get to help out by
goosing it. This test will last from 4-15 seconds.
The goose test is followed by fast codes (which only those of us stuck
with a meter will be able to see, and we can't do anything with them),
followed by the KOER on-demand codes exactly as above. If all was well,
you'll get 11-11. If you didn't goose it enough, you'll get a 77 and
get to do it over again.
At this point you can optionally run the SEFI test. Lightly tap the
throttle (it only takes a small movement, you won't need to go full
WOT), and release it. After a little while, the EEC-IV will begin
cutting the injector to each cylinder in turn, and looking for a drop
in RPM. If there is no drop associated with any individual cylinder,
then there is some problem there (that may or may not be related to
the injection system- you could have a valve problem, or a fouled
plug, or a shop towel stuck in the intake runner, and get the same
effect). This test takes about 90 seconds. If a cylinder is found by
this test to be weak, a single-digit code will be flashed telling you
which one (1-8). If all is well, the code will be 9. If it gives you a
77, it got confused (perhaps you bumped the throttle) and you need to
start over and rerun the test.
There's a hell of a lot more to it than this- but that gets way beyond
the scope of half-an-hour's typing. This is the procedure. I won't
even try to get the codes themselves documented here. If you're really
interested in this stuff, this is where the H manual and/or the Watson
book on tuning and modifying the EFI that I wrote about the other day
comes in handy. Or, perhaps, we can work on getting the code list
online- it'll be a few days before I can get it typed in. And if I
were you, I'd snag my own copy of these manuals ASAP- don't let the
assembled wisdom here substitute for your own good knowledge.
If you just get 11's, then fill the tank and go out for a flog with
my blessings! Happy testing!
-skod
Scott.Griffith@eng.sun.com
6 Jan 1993
Subject: Re: EEC-IV Diagnostics-- How?
On Jan 6, Eugene Chu wrote:
> Hey Scott,
>
> It's been over 12 years since I ran these tests on the EEC-III system.
> Back then, the procedure to start the test was with the engine running.
> (We didn't have an automated KOEO test; it was performed manually.)
> We connected a vacuum pump to the atmosphere side of the BMAP sensor
> and drew down to 15 inches of vacuum and quickly released it.
Yup- that's the procedure documented in the Watson book for the
EEC-III, all right. I don't know how many Mustangs came out with that
engine controller- I've never had the pleasure of playing with one.
Anybody know?
The Watson book's chapter on the EEC-III had a hilarious intro that I
just have to reproduce here (without permission- please don't tell
them):
"EEC-III
These are cars which professional mechanics call 'runaway
cars'. This term describes a model of car that is so
difficult to work on that it inspires all the mechanics
to 'runaway' whenever it rolls in the door. A P1800 Volvo,
for many mechanics, would be on that list.
For some mechanics, any car equipped with the EEC-III
system falls into that category... Study this section
of the book well, and hang up a shingle over your door
saying 'EEC-III Expert'. You will be about the only one
in town."
> So, not having any instruments around, I would get the engine running,
> pull a manifold vacuum line and put it on the BMAP sensor and quickly
> pull it off and plug it up. Then I would put two fingers on the solonoids
> to feel them click through the tests and click out the result codes.
Watson doesn't mention this- he describes only the codes flashed out
on the test lights. But it's sure good to know!
> With EEC-IV, they've obviously made the tests much more sophisticated,
> but I wonder if they still click the AIR solonoids during and after the
> the tests for status output.
Not that I'm aware of, but that doesn't mean much- perhaps some of the
Ford guys can comment on this, or maybe I'll go give a quick listen
tonight.
After the KOEO test completes, the EEC-IV can optionally enter the
"output state test". Opening the throttle briefly will cause it to set
the states of a bunch of actuators, especially in the EGR system.
Opening it again will cause it to reverse the states of the same
actuators- this allows you to make sure that they are working.
You can also enter the continuous test mode (the "wiggle test") by
disconnecting and then reconnecting the jumper, so that you can go and
tap and wiggle to your heart's content, looking for electrical
intermittents, and it'll tell you what it sees changing when it
shouldn't be. There's a lot more stuff in the EEC-IV than there was in
the EEC-III, apparently.
Oh, by the way- I screwed up in my description of the SEFI test (the
cylinder balance test), by trying to talk about later cars than my
own. To get into the test with an '86 or earlier car, you have to go
WOT. '87 and later cars just need a little tickle to go into it. Also,
'87 and later cars can then rerun the SEFI test after it finished,
agan by just tickling the throttle (saves having to go back theough
the whole KOER test). It also relaxes the criteria for "fail" with
each retest, so if one cylinder fails the first time but passes the
second, it's only a little weak- whereas if it fails 3 times in a row,
it's profoundly dead. Us '86 folks have to go back to Square 1 to
rerun, and we don't get this progression of thresholds. Sigh...
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
28 Jan 1993
Subject: the eec codes
Well, it's time to grab the bull by the tail and look at the situation
headon. I'm going to try and paraphrase the EEC-IV selftest code
dictionary, and get it online here. Now, note that the codes mean
different things depending upon what model car you have- I'm going to
do a very Mustang-specific thing and list only the meanings for 5.0l
SEFI applications. I haven't been able to get a conclusive source for
codes for the SVO 2.3L Turbo applications, so I've had to leave many
of them out for this revision- I've only included the ones I'm sure
about. So you guys lurking here with the Escorts, pickup trucks, and
SHOs may not find these definitions to your liking.
Also, these codes are assembled from 4 different sources- the Ford
service self-test code summary guide, the '86 H manual, the Watson
book, and the little book that came with my blinky toy. And they don't
always agree on what means what. So this rev 1.0 list may be
subject to some change!
In these definitions, the EEC-IV is referred to as the ECA. It's not
only good form, it's less to type.
In parenthesis after the code itself will be flags for the tests
during which it may occur: "o" for KOEO, "r" for KOER, and "c" for
continuous or memory codes. Codes flagged with an asterisk will cause
the MIL (Malfunction Indicator Light, better known as the Check Engine
light) to come on.
EEC-IV Diagnostic Codes, Rev. 1.0 1/27/93
11 (orc): No problems found in this portion of the test
12 (r): ECA could not increase idle speed above normal idle.
Suspect throttle body coking.
13 (r): ECA could not lower idle speed. Suspect Idle Bypass
valve problems.
14 (c): Intermittent PIP signal operation. Suspect
PIP sensor or TFI module, or grounding or interference problems at the
TFI module.
15 (o): ECA ROM test failure- failure is internal to ECA. (c) ECA KAM
(Keep Alive RAM Memory) failure.
16: Not defined for this application.
17: Not defined for this application.
18 (r*): Loss of TACH signal from TFI (Thick Film Integration- the
module on the side of the distributor) module to the ECA. There is an
open in the SPOUT circuit. Suspect SPOUT connector.
19 (o): Failure of ECA voltage regulator. Replace ECA.
21 (or): ECT (Engine Coolant Temp) out of range. Coolant is less than
50degF for KOEO, or less than 180degF for KOER, or greater than
250degF for either. If coolant temp is in proper range, suspect ECT
sensor (It won't be, for KOER tests on cars tha have a 160degF
thermostat!)
22 (orc*): MAP (Manifold Absolute Pressure, for speed-density cars) or
BP (Barometric Pressure, for mass-air cars) sensor signal out of
range. Suspect MAP or BP sensor and harness.
23 (or): Closed throttle TP (Throttle Position) sensor voltage out of
range.Suspect TP sensor.
24 (or): ACT (Air Charge Temperature) sensor voltage out of range. Suspect
ACT sensor and harness.
25: Not defined for this application.
26 (or): VAF (Vane Air Flow, 2.3L Turbo) or MAF (Mass Air Flow) signal out
of range. Suspect sensor and harness.
27 (r): VSS (Vehicle Speed Sensor) voltage too low, IVSC (Integrated
Vehicle Speed Control) test.
28 (r): Servo leaking up, IVSC (Integrated Vehicle Speed Control) test.
29 (c): VSS (Vehicle Speed Sensor) voltage too low.
31 (orc*): EVP (EGR Valve Position) or PFE (Pressure Feedback EGR)
sensor voltage too low, or EVR (EGR Vacuum Regulator) circuit
problems.
32 (orc): EVP or PFE voltage below closed limit.
33 (rc*): Insufficient EGR flow detected.
34 (orc): EVP or PFE voltage above closed limit during operation.
35 (orc*): EVP or PFE voltage too high during operation.
36 (r): Insufficient RPM increase, IVSC test.
37 (r): Insufficient RPM decrease, IVSC test.
38: Not defined for this application.
39: Not defined for this application.
41 (r): EGO sensor voltage always below "lean" on bank #1. (c*): No EGO
sensor transitions detected, bank #1.
42 (r): EGO sensor voltage always above "rich"
43: Not defined for these applications.
44 (r): Problems in the thremactor air system, bank #1. Suspect AIR
pump, diverter valve, solenoids, harness.
45 (r): Thermactor air is always upstream. Suspect diverter
valve, solenoids, harness.
46 (r): Thermactor air unable to dump to atmosphere. Suspect
diverter valve, solenoids, harness.
47 (o): Speed control command switches not working, IVSC test.
48 (o): Speed control command switches shorted to ground, IVSC test.
49 (o): Speed control ground circuit open, IVSC test.
51 (orc*): ECT voltage too high (coolant too cold, circa -40degF!).
Suspect ECT, harness.
52 (o): PSPS (Power Steering Pressure Switch) circuit open. Suspect PSPS,
harness. (r): PSPS did not change states.
53 (orc*): TP sensor voltage too high (indicates WOT condition).
54 (orc*): ACT (air Charge Temperature) sensor voltage too high.
55: Not defined for this appication.
56 (orc*): MAF sensor voltage too high.
57-59: Not defined for these applications.
61 (orc*): ECT voltage too low- indicates coolant temp greater than 250degF.
62: Not defined for this appication.
63 (orc*): TP sensor voltage too low.
64 (orc*): ACT sensor voltage too low, indicates intake air temp
greater than 250degF.
65: Not defined for this appication.
66 (rc*): MAF below minimum test voltage.
67 (o): Clutch switch open, AC left on, transmission in gear.
68-69: Not defined for this appication.
71 (rc): 2.3L turbo only. ECA software reset detected- key power lost.
Check ECA power harness.
72 (r): MAP sensor, insufficient vacuum detected during Dynamic
Response test.
73 (r): Insufficient goose during Dynamic Response test. Rerun test,
goose it harder.
74 (r): BOO (Brake on/off) action not observed during Dynamic Response
test. We shouldn't see this with the Mustangs.
75 (r): BOO switch always closed.
76 (r): 2.3L Turbo only. Insufficient VAF variation seen during
Dynamic Response test.
77 (r): No goose detected durning Dynamic Respose test. Rerun
test, goose it harder.
78: Not defined for these applications.
79 (o): A/C or defroster on, tranny not in neutral.
81 (o): TAD or AM-2 (Thermactor Air Diverter) solenoid circuit
failure, or SCVNT (Speed Control Vent) circuit failure (IVSC test).
82: TAB or AM-1 (Thermactor Air Bypass) solenoid circuit failure.
83 (o): 2.3L Turbo only. EGRC or EVR solenoid circuit failure.
84 (o): EVR solenoid circuit failure.
85 (o): CANP (Canister Purge) solenoid circuit failure.
86: Not defined for these applications.
87 (oc): FP relay circuit failure- suspect intertia switch, fusible link,
FP relay.
88-89: Not defined for these applications.
91 (r): EGO sensor voltage always lean, bank #2. Suspect vacuum leaks,
EGR system, plugs, plug wires, EGO sensor. (c*): No oxygen sensor
transitions detected, bank #2.
92 (r): EGO voltage sensor always rich. Suspect high fuel pressure, CANP
problems, PCV problems, saturated EVAP canister, EGO sensor.
93: Not defined for these applications.
94 (r): Thermactor Air System problem on bank #2.
95 (oc): Fuel Pump Monitor circuit problems, processor to motor
ground. Suspect inertia switch, FP realy, harness.
96 (oc): FP circuit failure, battery to processor.
97: Not defined for these applications.
98 (r): Hard fault present. The ECA is running in FMEM (Failure
Effects Management Mode), so something is royally screwed up that the
KOEO test should have told you about. Rerun KOEO and fix whatever you
find there.
99: Not defined for these applications.
And there you have it. My fingers are _smoking_- that's enough for now.
-skod
17 Mar 93
bkelley@pms706.pms.ford.com (Brian Kelley)
racefab@pms706.pms.ford.com
I'm building an '83 Capri into a track and autocross car. I'll be running
on big slicks with a 10 pt cage that should be very tied in. I have the car
really torn down now, and the cage is going in very soon.
Many have suggested that seam welding everything is a great thing to do, and
for quite some time now I have agreed. However, I recently spoke with an
ex-SSGT driver who had other opinions. He feels that seam welding isn't
necessary with a really good cage and that it can really complicate repairing
the car when you mess it up (you can't just pop the spot welds if you've
seam welded everything). That also makes sense (though what should I expect
from someone who raced SSGT? ;-)
17 Mar 1993
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
racefab@pms706.pms.ford.com (Brian Kelley)
On Mar 17, Brian Kelley wrote:
> Many have suggested that seam welding everything is a great thing to do, and
> for quite some time now I have agreed.
>
> Any opinions?
Well, my opinion is to not seam weld it. If you are going with a good
cage, then design it well, feed the loads into it, and just let the
old sheetmetal hang off of it.
There's another good reason for this. Much of the Ford sheetmetal is
galvanized on one side. When I was installing the subframe connectors
on my Mustang, I essentially had the rocker seams seamwelded while
sticking them to the outer stringers. And, despite hours of prep work,
and the work being done by the most accomplished pro welder I know, it
took over 2 hours per seam. The coating on the metal kept splattering
and sputtering, killing the arc, and generally misbehaving just about
as badly as I have ever seen. It just didn't want to weld, and the
welder told me to grind it smooth and never tell anyone who did the
work as he was so unhappy with the results.
Unless you are willing to pop the spots and clean the all the surfaces
(including the internal ones between the spots!) down to bare steel,
it simply isn't gonna weld very easily or very well. So screw it,
IMHO. If your rules will let you build up your cage to semi-tubeframe
specs, that's a much better investment of time and money.
5 Apr 93
dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us
racefab@pms706.pms.ford.com
-> In the original configuration with a 260 ci or 289 ci V8 in the car,
-> the spring structures for the front flexed a lot. For racing
-> applications, Shelby's team found it nessicary to brace the spring
-> towers with steel tubes: 2 ran from the center of the firewall to the
-> towers, and the third connected the towers.
Shelby made a lot of fuss about his shock tower braces, but they were
copies of the ones Stroppe used to use on his road race Falcons. Both
of 'em missed the point, sort of - the Falcon/Mustang doesn't have much
of a crossmember underneath, so the only thing resisting side-to-side
flex is the upper horizontal fenderwell. The most important place to
brace an early Ford is underneath; a tubular steel K-member is the way
to go. A plain old delta brace on top won't hurt, but if you don't
reinforce the bottom, the front end will still move around too much.
BTW, I just located a small, out-of-the-way junkyard that sold me a
complete strut set, with calipers, rotors, and all, for $40. I just
love it when a plan comes together...
skod
Tue, 6 Apr 93
hotrod@dixie.com (The Hotrod List)
> When we yanked the 4-holer, we replaced the 1 row radiator with a
> 2 row out of a 83' LTD. The new (used, actually) radiator was really
> clean... For cooling, it's using 2 large fans, 1 pusher, 1 puller.
> To my knowedge, a 3-row does not exist for a Fox body car.
Sure one does. Just get a '79 Fairmont _towing package_ radiator, and
have your local radiator shop solder in a 1.25" inlet neck. Works great,
drops right in- that's what I use on my '86 Mustang track car. I liked
the idea of getting for $85 what other guys were spending $250 to get
from Modine or Griffin.
A two row really won't cool the car well enough for hard driving. The
first season I had my car on the track, I took the advice of a friend
who ran Mustangs in the Escort series- he told me that the best
solution for overheating in a showroom stock Mustang was to stop
looking at the gage... For the '88 season I finally decided I had
to do something, and I'm glad I did. I still have my head gaskets.
I just hated hearing that metallic tinkling sound as the car cooled in
the paddock between sessions. Look around and snag this replacement
radiator- they're very cheap, and very worthwhile.
27 Apr 1993
sparker@tuba.calpoly.edu
mustangs@hpda.cup.hp.com
When setting the TPS should you leave the idle speed control solenoid
connected or should it be disconnected? There is a sticker on my throttle
body saying not to turn the throttle plate screw counter clockwise. I
thought that you adjusted the screw until desired idle rpm then set the
correct voltage on the TPS. Am I wrong?
Out of curiousity(sp?) what effect will it have if you set the voltage on the
TPS higher than 1volt at idle. My friend told me that it would make the
mixture more rich at WOT. He says that alot of the 5.0 guys at the track(1320)
running alot of boost ( >6 psi) on there superchargered motors do this.
27 Apr 1993
Chuck Fry
When setting the TPS should you leave the idle speed control solenoid
connected or should it be disconnected?
The idle speed control (aka air bypass valve) should be disconnected,
and the engine warm, when you set idle speed. Be sure to run the engine
at 2000-2500 RPM for a couple of minutes before checking or setting
idle speed.
There is a sticker on my throttle
body saying not to turn the throttle plate screw counter clockwise. I
thought that you adjusted the screw until desired idle rpm then set the
correct voltage on the TPS. Am I wrong?
As far as I know you are correct. Check idle speed with an *accurate*
(digital) tach -- don't rely on the stocker, which is likely way off.
Out of curiousity(sp?) what effect will it have if you set the voltage on the
TPS higher than 1volt at idle. My friend told me that it would make the
mixture more rich at WOT. He says that alot of the 5.0 guys at the track
(1320) running alot of boost ( >6 psi) on there superchargered motors do this.
They do that to fake out the EEC-IV, because it was never designed to
run in those regions. For your bone stock car, you want the TPS voltage
to be as close to .997 V at a 700 RPM idle as possible.
rec.autos.tech
ccw@slee01.srl.ford.com (C. C. Warren)
4 May 1993
: >>If the second, another question arises, to wit: Ford Motorsport lists a
: >>set of "universal" Fox-chassis A-arms with poly bushings and "low-friction"
: >
: >Universal my eye, the Fox-based T-birds ('84 - 89?) use a longer A arm.
: >The parts you describe are current-issue Mustang A arms.
:
: The '80-'82 T-Birds were Fox platform cars. '83-'88 and '89-present
: T-Birds are on their own platform (shared by the Cougar and Lincoln
: Continental (until the big change) and Mark VII/Mark VIII(?)).
:
:
: Also look for a defunct Lincoln Varsailles; it's also a Fox platform
: car, and has lots of nice little goodies like a 9-in rear end with
: disk brakes--you might be able to find lots of parts worth salvaging.
The Versailles was based on the mid-seventies Granadas which were loosely
based on the Mavericks/1st gen Mustang/Falcon. These cars did not use the
Fox platform modified Macpherson strut front suspension.
Fox based cars: 1979.... Mustang/Capri(not the Australian built 2 seater)
1978-1984 Fairmont/Zephyr (replaced by Tempo/Topaz)
1983-1988 T-bird/XR-7
198?-198? Granada/Cougar
198?-1987 Continental (RWD)
1985-1992 Lincoln Mark VII
1985-198? Ford LTD/Mercury Marquis (Not Grand Marquis)
Even though these were based on the same platform, it does not mean all
suspension parts are interchangeable.
4 May 1993
Robert Seymour
> I continually read about SVO's mass air system and my dealer tried to seel
> it to me for , get this $800 Cdn !!!! Hmmmm.... could some kind soul
> explain to me what it is, why is it so much, and what will it do??? Seems
> to me for $800 I could many more modifications which will more benefits for
> 800.
Mass air is one of two ways Ford calculates SEFI fuel delivery. Your
current system is Speed Density, which uses several sensors to determine
the air coming in, and calculates fuel delivery and timing accordingly.
The problem is if you change the engine, it can't compensate, as the
algorithms are written specifically for the stock engine. Small changes
are OK, but anything substantial will put the sensor readings outside
accepted values and send the computer into FMES (Failure Mode Engine
Strategy), which is a "limp home" way to calculate fuel (the computer
thinks that something is broken, so it works like a throttle position
system [still looks at the HEGO, et al., but this isn't for performance]).
Mass Air uses a platinum wire sensor to calculate how much air is being
pulled through by the engine. It will allow for changes in the engine,
since it looks at what is actually used. The MAF conversion is necessary if
you are going to make any large changes in your engine. You don't need it
until then (Speed Density is slightly faster with a stock engine, as the
MAF is restrictive (55mm) and Speed Density tends to run a little rich).
BBK sells the MAF conversion kit (which includes 55mm MAF, computer
modules, air box to throttle body ducting, and wiring) for $475 (US dollars).
Shop around and there is probably something cheaper (I happen to have the
BBK catalog in my office).
If you want to hear more on injection I can send you one of my posts on it
or write something up, but this is enough for the list.
> I also keep seeing the Ford SVO GT40 kit. What is this GT40? Why is it
> called such? They claim it will turn a stock 5.0 to 275 bhp. Is this true?
> How much?? (never seems to list prices :) ). Anyone got one? Feelings?
The GT-40 is an endurance road racer from the late 60s. It dethroned the
Ferrari 275s which were nearly invincible in IMSA competition. I believe
it won four consecutive 24 Hours at LeMans. The early GT-40s used 289
Windsor (later models [the Mark-III (I think?) and Mark-IV] used the
FE-block 427) engines with a new head casting that became known as the
GT-40. A similar casting is available from SVO, the GT-40 heads.
Motorsport (SVO) also has a "GT-40 Valve Train Kit" that includes valves,
springs, keepers, etc. designed to work with the GT-40 casting.
Additionally, there is an EFI intake that has been dubbed the GT-40. It is
designed for higher RPM use than the stock manifolds. It uses welded
tubular upper runners and staggered layout (the lower half is cast
aluminum, like the stock intake). There is now a related product designed
to replace the GT-40 intake called the GT-41, which is designed for mass
manufacture (the upper runners are redesigned so that they don't need to
be hand welded) and has a nitrous injection port built into the EGR to plenum
runner. I don't know how the manifolds got the name GT-40, as all the GT-40s
were carbureted, and none of them were 5.0Ls (I guess they wanted it to
match the GT-40 heads).
SVO is now offering a kit for 5.0L enines that they are dubbing the "GT-40
Certified Kit." There advertisemend claims 270 horsepower (SAE gross
horsepower dyno test), but I never believe manufacturer's claims (I think
it is Chuck who has a sig that says to derate claims by 25% :-). The kit
includes GT-40 intake, manifold cover, 65mm throttle body/EGR spacer,
GT-40 heads, GT-40 valve train kit, 1.60 roller rockers, gaskets, EFI pump,
shorty headers (stainless or with ceramic coating), and 3.27 rear ring and
pinion. It is EPA legal, but does not have a CARB EO# (read: 49 state only).
The kit looks OK, but I'm sure you can do much better for your money. I
like to design these things myself (at least the systems, if not the
components themselves), but if you don't have the time or the desire
to, the GT-40 kit might be a good way to go (though most Mustang shops
should be able to do better, so at least look around first).
7 May 93
russell@valet.phx.mcd.mot.com (Mark Russell)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
> Just curious, what's the relationship between Ford and
> the EEC-IV manufacturer, which I believe is Moto?
>
> Does Ford buy the "computer" and provide the proms/firmware?
> Or does Moto provide the hardware and firmware?
Unfortunately, Mot. SPS (Semiconductor Prod. Div.) does not provide most
of (any of?) EEC-IV.
It is Intel 8061 based, which is, related to the i960 microcontroller
family, not the 8051 family.
I have tried to get data sheets from Intel buddies. Response is always
"We have a non-disclosure agreement with Ford on that part".
There are people on this list that know MUCH more about this than I do.
But things change :)
Rumor (more than rumor?) has it that starting '95 model year, eec-?? goes with
Motorola based, and (rumor alert, with some factual basis) powerpc
based. Right now as far as I can tell, there is no powerpc microcontroller,
but, the cpu of the powerpc is "modular". Enough said.
Now. if anyone _HAS_ data sheets on 8061 or 8763 (Intel), I'd really like
to see them. If anyone has info on eec-iv++, I'd be interested too. If
anyone is interested in anything I find, drop me a line, I'll share what I
can.
BTW, Ford anti lock brakes, and I believe fancy electronic features like
keyless entry and such are Mot. SPS based.
07 May 93
Dan Malek
Mark Russell
>> Just curious, what's the relationship between Ford and
>> the EEC-IV manufacturer, which I believe is Moto?
>>
>> Does Ford buy the "computer" and provide the proms/firmware?
>> Or does Moto provide the hardware and firmware?
Ford builds it all. The EEC-IVs are similar in most applications, but
the PC board and parts count differ, and the code/lookup PROMs are
different (let's see, I guess the connector plug and box are the same,
usually :). Anything to save $0.10 (when you are building hundreds of
thousands, it all adds up).
>Unfortunately, Mot. SPS (Semiconductor Prod. Div.) does not provide most
>of (any of?) EEC-IV.
Motorola must be a second source of some parts, because several of the
EEC-IVs I currently have are stamped with the Motorola logo.
>It is Intel 8061 based, which is, related to the i960 microcontroller
>family, not the 8051 family.
The 8061 is very similar to the 8096. I don't know if the 8061 is a
custom 8096, or the 8096 is a generic 8061. I do know that they are not
exactly the same, and that I don't have the time to figure it out.
>I have tried to get data sheets from Intel buddies. Response is always
>"We have a non-disclosure agreement with Ford on that part".
I don't care.....I just rip the 8061 out of the EEC-IV and replace it
with a very capable Motorola 68HC11. I then have development tools, my
own code, and I spend my time much more productively than trying to
reverse engineer the 8061.
>There are people on this list that know MUCH more about this than I do.
>But things change :)
>Rumor (more than rumor?) has it that starting '95 model year, eec-?? goes with
>Motorola based, and (rumor alert, with some factual basis) powerpc
>based. Right now as far as I can tell, there is no powerpc microcontroller,
>but, the cpu of the powerpc is "modular". Enough said.
>Now. if anyone _HAS_ data sheets on 8061 or 8763 (Intel), I'd really like
>to see them. If anyone has info on eec-iv++, I'd be interested too. If
>anyone is interested in anything I find, drop me a line, I'll share what I
>can.
>BTW, Ford anti lock brakes, and I believe fancy electronic features like
>keyless entry and such are Mot. SPS based.
Yeah, and these are parts you can buy from Motorola *with data sheets*, and
build your own if you want.
11 May 1993
FLETCHER@fsdvx2.arc.nasa.gov (Jay Fletcher)
mustangs@hpermsp.cup.hp.com
Here's an interesting tidbit for any of you who have found code 31 in the
KOEO or KOER tests. I was getting it in the KOEO test but not the KOER. The
check engine light was flashing at me every morning after about 2-3 min
of operation but not when the car was fully warmed up.
I recently changed the upper manifold to EGR spacer and EGR spacer to
throttle body gaskets because I suspected a vacuum leak. With the spacer
and throttle body off I noticed coolant in the intake part of the upper
manifold. The EGR to manifold gasket also had some burned areas that were
probably causing excess exhaust to leak into the intake as well. After
re-sealing and resetting the Keep Alive memory in the EEC-IV I no longer
have a code 31 during the KOEO or KOER tests or a flashing check engine
light.
My vacuum increased from about 15-16 to 17-18 at idle and my milage improved.
I'm glad I didn't just go out and buy a new EGR position sensor... I think
I must have another vacuum leak though, because 17-18 in Hg is a little low
isn't it?
10 May 1993
chu@musp0.jpl.nasa.gov (Eugene Chu)
mustangs@hpermsp.cup.hp.com
A late response; I don't know if anyone else has already addressed this,
my miail messages have been getting to me in rather out of order fashion.
I know of two different MAF sensor conversion kits you can get for a car
that does not already have it. The standard one is just that; it has a
standard computer and MAF used in the cars that came stock with them.
(1988 and up California Mustangs, and 1989 and up 49ers). This kit
has been available for $450 US from some of the sources advertising in
the Mustang rags. The other one includes the Pro-M 77 mm MAF sensor
(the stock is 55 mm). I don't think SVO packages this sensor with a
computer; I think they expect you to replace the stock MAF that you
already have. Unless SVO has added the kit to their catalog in the last
year, they have only been available from the various distributors, usually
for about $850 US. The MAF sensor itself could be gotten from these
distributors for about $575 US, if all you want to do is to replace your
stock unit. I think some distributors (BBK comes to mind) will sell you
just a computer ($325).
I mentioned in the past that what I would to is to get the 73 mm MAF
sensor from C&L Performance for about $200, and buy an extra calibration
unit (say, for a 30 pound injector) for another $20. I can integrate
this into the stock MAF system that I already have and get nearly the
same performance potentials of the Pro-M unit for less than 1/2 the price.
If you don't already have the stock MAF setup, you'll need to shell out
the $450 for the conversion kit, but you would still be ahead by a couple
hundred dollars (for the bigger injectors?).
16 May 1993
"Andrew C. Green"
mustangs@hpda.cup.hp.com
John Schultz writes:
> Does anyone have some hints about how to get a window that appears to
> be off the track to be put back on track, without removing the door
> panel? Starting a few nights ago, my passenger side window would stop
> about two inches shy of fully closing. I was finally able to get it
> all the way up today, but the window is bowed out slightly in the back
> (it doesn't lay flush with the weatherstripping). I noticed that when
> the window is lowered all the way that it makes a clunking sound, and
> then the rear part of the window pops back up a bit...
Usually when the glass is completely off the track, you can't get full
travel like you describe, but it does sound like something is loose or
misaligned. You _will_ have to remove the interior door panel to see in
there, but it's not too difficult. Watch that you don't rip the push-in
fasteners out of the panel. There's a fork-shaped panel removal tool on
a screwdriver handle made for this job; buy one at the usual parts place.
After you get the panel and weathershield off, you can run the glass up
and down and probably see the problem pretty quick. Adjustable parts like
window tracks aren't riveted in place; they'll use bolts and oval slots
(at least on one track, even if the other track is fixed). If for some
reason you find that you have to remove a rivet installation, use a center-
punch to knock out the breakaway pin in the center, then just drill the
rivet head off. It's quick and easy. Replace with a nut, bolt and lock
washer when reassembling. Don't forget the lock washer.
10 May 1993
chu@musp0.jpl.nasa.gov (Eugene Chu)
mustangs@hpermsp.cup.hp.com
A late response; I don't know if anyone else has already addressed this,
my miail messages have been getting to me in rather out of order fashion.
I know of two different MAF sensor conversion kits you can get for a car
that does not already have it. The standard one is just that; it has a
standard computer and MAF used in the cars that came stock with them.
(1988 and up California Mustangs, and 1989 and up 49ers). This kit
has been available for $450 US from some of the sources advertising in
the Mustang rags. The other one includes the Pro-M 77 mm MAF sensor
(the stock is 55 mm). I don't think SVO packages this sensor with a
computer; I think they expect you to replace the stock MAF that you
already have. Unless SVO has added the kit to their catalog in the last
year, they have only been available from the various distributors, usually
for about $850 US. The MAF sensor itself could be gotten from these
distributors for about $575 US, if all you want to do is to replace your
stock unit. I think some distributors (BBK comes to mind) will sell you
just a computer ($325).
I mentioned in the past that what I would to is to get the 73 mm MAF
sensor from C&L Performance for about $200, and buy an extra calibration
unit (say, for a 30 pound injector) for another $20. I can integrate
this into the stock MAF system that I already have and get nearly the
same performance potentials of the Pro-M unit for less than 1/2 the price.
If you don't already have the stock MAF setup, you'll need to shell out
the $450 for the conversion kit, but you would still be ahead by a couple
hundred dollars (for the bigger injectors?).
17 May 93
bkelley@pms001.pms.ford.com ( Brian Kelley )
mustangs@hpda.cup.hp.com
I've made some mention of the changes to Bud's car for this season. He
stopped by on Sunday to drop off some old slicks and we did some more
bench racing about how his car is handling with the new setup. Essentially
the new setup is a much higher front roll center (about 2.5" above ground)
and a lower rear roll center (via panhard) and a 3 link suspension that
doesn't bind.
Bud's old setup was sort of like a go-kart. Super stiff. To go fast
you threw the car into the corner, put your foot into it and drifted your
way out with gobs of power. His car has major torque for a 5.0 - squeeze
the throttle too much in 2nd gear and you'll smoke the slicks. It pulls
hard into 7K. He was great at hanging it out to go fast - the car seemed
out of shape, but he'd use the power to keep it on course and was really
fast. The car was a blast to drive - you set the nose and let the power
guide you through the turn. If you stepped on it too much and weren't
ready with opposite lock, the car would spin like a top.
To describe this year's setup, I'd have to say Bud has almost been
neutered. No amount of throttle will cause the rear end to come out.
If anything happens, the nose will lift and it will plow, but the rear
is *planted*. For a guy who likes to power his way through corners,
this sure changes things. His tire wear has decreased tremendously,
even though he's running an even softer tire. The savings in tires alone
will make the changes cost effective. He's learning to drive the car
all over again- this is not a Mustang as we know it.
Most interesting of all is the car's ability to put power down. He
can now stand on it in *first* gear and the car will hook up. That's pretty
incredible. Just when you think you have more than enough power, a
chassis change allows you to put down Much more... I want to know what
his 0 to 60 times are (probably low 4's or high 3's).
17 May 1993
Scott.Griffith@eng.sun.com
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
On May 17, Brian St. Denis wrote:
> Of the mags that I have read, I like it the best. Unfortunately, it seems
> to be the hardest to find. I really only know one place to get it and
> I am not by there enough...
>
> As for the other mags, I won't be buying them very often. I have read a
> few and was not impressed.
All of them have their good points and bad points. The only one that I can
think of that is particularly dependable is Super Ford, and even it has its
spastic moments. SF, MM&FF, Mustang Monthly- there are more titles out there
than you can shake a stick at.
They are all prone to exhibiting the behavior that John DeArmond calls the
"advectorial"- which is to say that editorial space can be bought for not too
much money, and product reviews are uniformly glowing. Even for profucts that
do not, and in some cases, _cannot_ work. Super Ford is better in this respect
than some of the smaller Mustang mags. I have actually seen them admit that
some products aren't God's gift to the tool box.
John calls them "advectorials" because they serve primarily as a vector, or a
source of leads. They point out vendors to call up and ask the _real_
questions of, especially the questions that the manufacturers don't like to
answer.
Still, they are all a very useful source of information, disinformation, and
misinformation. If you are up to the task of calling up the vendors and
sorting the wheat from the chaff, you can do very well. There are some pearls
out there, and there are the occasional well-done technical piece. I always
just check the bottom to find out who paid the bills, is all.
The other magazine that is a priceless source of all the right stuff is Circle
Track. Don't laugh- the roundy-round boys have seen all the problems that you
or I are likely to see in our street/track cars, and they've come up with good
solutions to them. They are also, to a man, averse to spending money on stuff
that doesn't work, or too much money on the stuff that does.
I could live very well with just CT and SF. But I subscribe to some of the
others as well, just to keep up. The subscription is the ideal solution to the
problem of missing issues, and it's a hell of a lot cheaper in the long haul.
17 May 1993
jkurien@watson.ibm.com (Jim Kurien)
mustangs@hpda.cup.hp.com
This might help anyone a bit nervous about taking that first big plunge. BTW
- Sorry for cluelessly CC:'ing the whole list several times recently.
-------------------------------------------------------
A while back someone on the list wrote that they lifted the carpet on their
Mustang and found a cracked floor pan. Even though mine didn't have any
symptoms, I decided to check, and found a two inch crack right where a rear
mounting bolt of the driver's seat passes through the floor pan. I also found
that this crack would allow water to collect under the carpet, which was
totally undetectable from the interior. I decided to get subframe connectors,
to stop the floor pan from flexing, and to support the rear mounting points of
the seat. Initially, I almost ordered the Kenny Brown units, as they have the
"double cross" design, which allows them to bolt right up to the seat mounting
points. I saw the KB units in a store, and they were fairly short pieces of
bare, flat 1" square or so stock, with a cross bar welded on to support the
seat mounts.
Luckily, on the advice of several people on the list, I ended up ordering the
Global West units. I paid $99 including shipping. I would guess they are 1'
to 2' longer than the KB's, and they came finished (I think they're powder
coated). They consist of tube bent to the shape of the floor pan, with plates
welded on each end. The rear plate butts against the torque box, while the
front plate attaches at the front of the front subframe. When they arrived, I
test fitted them to the car, and they fit perfectly, with quite a bit of
overlap on the subframes to allow a generous amount of welding to be done.
They also lie beside the subframes, so you don't lose any ground clearance.
Even though the installation looked easy and my girlfriend has done a bit of
welding before, I took the coward's way out and brought the car to a shop
rather than buying my own welder. The shop gave an estimate of $175 to weld in
the connectors and tie in the seat mounts. I also had them fix the floor
crack, which by this point had grown rather large, and put in some
reinforcement plates under the seats, so the total estimate came to over $200.
Scott Griffith's suggestion to lower the total cost by grinding the undercoat
off myself didn't work here, as they sand blasted it off fairly quickly. I
did have to remove the carpet around the seats. This was easy in my case, as
I wasn't worried about preserving the carpet. However, I think if you are
keeping the carpet, might be able to just take the screws out of the scuff
plate in the door jamb. Once you or the shop removes the seats, this might
let you prop up the carpet high enough keep it from burning. The shop took
care of temporarily moving any lines which were in the way on the underside of
the car.
The shop I went to had a pit, so they just rolled the car over it and welded
up the connectors. Not including the extra work I had done, the job took
about 3 hours, and included removing the undercoating, welding on the parts,
and spraying new undercoating on. Both the welder and shop owner told me the
GW's were the best fitting connectors they had seen. I checked out the
installation, and was fairly impressed, with the exception that they forgot to
tie the seat mounts to the connectors. Once they did that, I took the car
back and took it for a spin.
I'm not an experienced racer, and my good rims aren't on the car at the
moment, so take this only for what it's worth: I was blown away by the
difference in the car. _Keep in mind_ before this my driver's seat was
leaning into turns for me and at 200K miles the chassis was getting tired, but
the car seems 1000 times firmer. It also seems a lot more "connected" to the
road during cornering, and I can finally feel the Konis and springs I put in
doing more than loosening my fillings. I was worried that with my seat tied
right to the connectors I'd be getting pounded over the bumps, but I
intentionally drove over some pretty big bumps, and it wasn't any harsher than
before. In my case, it's somewhat less disconcerting because now the seat no
longer bounces around nearly as much. IMHO, this is a great investment if you
plan on putting a stiff suspension in your car, or plan on keeping it a while.
After I got the subframes, I decided to put in rocker panel braces like those
offered by GW or Slot Car Mustangs. So far this has turned out to be a lot
less dramatic than I anticipated. I bought two 6' lengths of 1-1/4" angle
steel (1/8" thick) and a few feet of 1" box stock for about $20. The angle
stock fits in a depression just behind the rocker panel lip that's about 1-
3/4" wide. I cut a piece to run in the depression from the torque box all the
way to about where the front fender starts. I found an 18T bimetal hacksaw
blade will cut 1/8" steel pretty easily, though a Sawzall is easier. I'm
going to have the angle stock welded to the floor pan along the rocker panel,
then have the box stock welded as 3 or 4 stringers between the subframe
connectors and the angle stock. The only vaguely tricky part is getting the
e-brake cables around where the angle stock ties to the torque box. I'll post
a (short) followup note when that's done.
Thanks to everyone who gave me input on this. BTW, the shop I used and would
recommend was D&F Quality Structures in Ossining, NY.
If anyone's read this far, any suggestions on how to paint the bare metal
plates I have on my floor pan would be appreciated.
19 May 1993
chu@musp0.jpl.nasa.gov (Eugene Chu)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
The procedure for adjusting timing on the EFI V8 is almost identical to doing
it on the non-computerized cars. There is a small connector with a plug in it
in the wiring harness near the distributor. After you warm up the engine, you
remove this plug to read the timing with your light. This prevents the
computer from automatically adjusting the timing. Set it to where you want it
(I've read anywhere from 8 to 13 degrees BTDC) by loosening the hold-down bolt
and turning the distributor body, and then retighten the bolt.
In most of today's emission controlled cars, you can potentially see power and
efficiency improvements with slightly advanced timing. The idea is to have
the peak combustion pressure occur with the piston at (or just past) TDC, so
the expanding gasses can do the most work pushing the piston down. However,
this also creates the most amount of NOx byproducts, the most irratable and
visible form of air polution from combustion, a number of things are done to
reduce the effect. First, there is EGR, which dilutes the intake air with
innert exhaust gasses so there is less of a bang that can be produced during
combustion. Then, the timing is retarded so that the peak combustion occurs
AFTER TDC. The retarded combustion does less work against the piston (which
is on its way down already), so most of the energy goes to heating the engine.
This is why retarding the timing will cause the engine to run hotter.
However, with today's cheap gas, it might be a necessity to run the timing
retarded to reduce detonation. You want the timing set so that the engine
just barely pings at full load. The EEC-IV computer has been tuned to take a
number of things into account: when the engine load increases, it either
retards the timing and/or adds EGR to prevent detonation. Unfortunately, it
is getting its settings from a finite set of maps, instead of actually
calculating what the current ideal conditions are. Plus, it has no real
feedback for how much timing is really needed (no knock sensor in the
Mustangs).
Full length headers provide a bigger chamber for the exhaust gasses from each
cylinder to expand into, thus providing less restriction than shorties. Plus,
the longer primary tubes give better low end response.
25 May 1993
chucko@freud.arc.nasa.gov (Chuck Fry)
jbolton@mtgy.gtegsc.com (John Bolton)
} My pride and joy is an '89 Mustang LX 5.0 (hatchback) which I bought new in
} October of '88 (6 months before the dash badge and 140 speedo, dammit).
...
} Modifications: Texas Turbo ram air, K&N filter, Auto Specialties 71mm MAF body
} and underdrive pullies, 160-degree thermostat, 13 degrees of initial timing,
} Borla mufflers. I also have removed and plugged the vacuum lines to the EGR
} valve and fuel pressure regulator (can anyone say for sure if this actually
} helps or hurts?). I used to have the EGR plate coolant lines bypassing the EGR
} plate, until I noticed burns in the hood insulation (comments?).
Wow. This is the worst combination of mistakes on a single car I've heard of.
For starters, the 160-degree thermostat means the EEC-IV never actually runs
in "normal" mode, but is stuck in "warmup" or rich mode at all times.
Plugging the vacuum line to the fuel pressure regulator compounds this mistake
by unnecessarily raising the fuel pressure relative to the intake air stream,
meaning you run even more rich at high vacuum. The lack of EGR also hurts
part-throttle efficiency and response. Finally, the EGR plate *must* have
coolant to keep the exhaust heat from frying the gaskets, and the throttle
plate, and apparently the hood insulation...
The fact that you aren't complaining about spark plug life measured in
hundreds of miles (if that!) is a testament to the EEC-IV's ability to
compensate for these misadjustments.
} I tried some
} MAC off-road pipes a while back (after having the Borlas installed), but
torque } fell off so much that, having 2.73s, I had to put the stock pipes
back on.
I bet if you stuck in a 180-degree thermostat and reconnected the missing
vacuum lines, you'd be able to run the MAC pipes on the street.
25 May 93
jbolton@mtgy.gtegsc.com (John Bolton)
chucko@freud.arc.nasa.gov
> Wow. This is the worst combination of mistakes on a single car I've
> heard of.
Really? Wow.
> For starters, the 160-degree thermostat means the EEC-IV never actually
> runs in "normal" mode, but is stuck in "warmup" or rich mode at all
> times.
No. Having a 160-degree thermostat doesn't mean the coolant never reaches
temperatures above 160 degrees. It does mean it will take a longer period of
time for the coolant to reach "operating" temperature. At least that's the
case here in the Deep South. I do plan to switch to a 180 this Fall.
> Plugging the vacuum line to the fuel pressure regulator
> compounds this mistake by unnecessarily raising the fuel pressure
> relative to the intake air stream, meaning you run even more rich at
> high vacuum.
I'll buy that. I made that modification hoping throttle response would
improve due to the elimination of any lag time the regulator might have
when increasing fuel pressure as vacuum drops.
> The lack of EGR also hurts part-throttle efficiency and
> response.
How does the injection of exhaust gases into the intake stream improve
throttle response?
> Finally, the EGR plate *must* have coolant to keep the
> exhaust heat from frying the gaskets, and the throttle plate, and
> apparently the hood insulation...
Yeah, I found that out the hard way.
> I bet if you stuck in a 180-degree thermostat and reconnected the
> missing vacuum lines, you'd be able to run the MAC pipes on the street.
Nope. With vacuum lines connected and coolant at 195-200 degrees, torque
was still down for the count.
27 May 93
shorty@nevada.edu
My name is David Haag, and I was wondering where you obtained your
information about the EEC-IV. In particular, the information regarding the 50%
increase in pulse width. Also, I would like to know if you have any
information as to specifically which inputs control how long the pulse width
will be when the pulse is sent to the injectors. Also, can you give me any
information on the EGO closed loop? And, do you know where I could pick up any
other information relating to the EEC-IV computer? The reason for the
questions is that I've been considering "creating" a special type of
"computer" for the Mustang using a microcontroller, and I'm trying to get as
much information as I can about the specifics of how the EEC-IV gets its
information, computes it, and relays the information to the corresponding
components. Thanks for any and all information.
27 May 1993
Scott.Griffith@eng.sun.com
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
> I am aware of the 500 dollar kit, but if one does not feel like
> doing it for some reason you can refer to Charlie's high end price of
> $1600 for larger upfront calipers, replaced drums in the rear and
> braided hoses to connect the fluid lines.
Right. Charlie is simply doing what any businessman would do when a customer
wants something done that he doesn't want to do- he's quoted a nice, high
price. His specialty is more in the area of supercharging and powertrain mods
of that description. He tends only to like to do suspension and brake work for
cars that he's also doing the powertrain work on, since that's where he makes
his money.
No businessman in his right mind would ever say "I'd prefer not to do that" to
a customer with money in his pocket. The sane businessman will just quote a
price that should discourage them, and if the customer wants to pay it, fine-
that goes a long way towards easing the pain for them. Happens all the time,
all over the industry. Charlie's strong suit isn't welding, although he'll do
it if a project requires it. He's just not set up to be a chassis fab shop. If
you want a fab shop, I can help you out.
> One thing about Charlie's is that
> he does do a GREAT Job on the cars he works on but only few of us can
> afford his skilled services.
True, true. I have run against, ridden in, and pored over more products of his
shop than are even slightly healthy. He and I have spent many hours chewing
the fat over stuff that would just make your heart stop, and cost enough to
bankrupt small nations. The things he _likes_ to do, he attacks with unmatched
zeal! Some of the cars that have come out of there are very seriously Radical,
with a capital R.
> Mustang handeling has to be also upgraded as roads twist more often
> than not, and is just as important as stopping. With the responses he
> got I think he got pretty much the picture of what possibilities
> exist.
I certainly agree. My point is that whether you're attacking the braking
first, or the handling, there is much money to be saved by doing it yourself.
And by doing things in easy stages, based upon which ones give you the best
value for your money. Let's face it- you can get an additional .1g on the
skidpad, compared with the car in stock as-delivered trim, with nothing more
than an 18mm wrench and a tire gage. Sounds like a bargain to me! However, the
next .1g after that is gonna take cash. It takes a whole lot less cash, and
causes a whole lot fewer heartaches, if you do your own experiments- rather
than paying someone $60 an hour to do them for you.
> One more thing about breakes on mustangs that I have experienced is
> that the rear drums wear out much faster than the front disks, an
> upgrade to rear disk will have advantages for break service and
> performance as already mentioned.
That's very interesting, actually. Your experience is unusual, in that very
few people have reported wearing out the rears first. Even in racetrack use, I
found the rear drum brakes to be nearly immortal-primarily because they did so
little to help stop the car. It's really quite amazing what having functional
rear brakes can do for the car's manners on the track. I went through about 6
sets of front pads, and 2 sets of rotors, before my original rear shoes wore
out- they were still in place when I did the disk conversion, back in '87. Of
course, I was asking a lot of the car in track use...
Are you certain that the adjusters, prop valve, and rear slave cylinders are
healthy?
27 May 93
dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
-> for the aluminum quadrant too. It's about $120, and includes a new
-> cable and release fork.
Criminy! Ford's MSRP gouge-the-customer price for a Pinto or Mustang II
cable was around $10, last time I needed one. And you didn't have to buy the
other junk with it.
27 May 1993
chu@musp0.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Eugene Chu)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
Earlier today, I said something about replacing the stock self-adjusting
clutch mechanism with a billet aluminum quadrant and a new cable:
-> for the aluminum quadrant too. It's about $120, and includes a new
-> cable and release fork.
To which Dave Williams replied:
> Criminy! Ford's MSRP gouge-the-customer price for a Pinto or Mustang
>II cable was around $10, last time I needed one. And you didn't have to
>buy the other junk with it.
Well, I think the current price for the clutch cable for the late model V8
Mustang is significantly more than $10. But, it does not solve the problem of
that schlocky self-adjustment mechanism. The real solution to that is to
replace it with the aluminum quadrant and a manually adjusting mechanism of
some sort. It turns out that BBK's version makes use of a modified clutch
cable from Motorsport, whose kit also includes a release fork. I guess they
could try to make a deal with Ford to get just the cable, and no fork, to save
a few bucks and hopefully pass on the savings (not too unrealistic with them).
But they still need to modify a stock cable to work with their aluminum
quadrant. Believe me, the new set up gives you much better control over your
clutch than the stock junk, and well worth the $120 in parts.
28 May 93
joe@sybase.com (Joseph Weinstein)
mustangs@hpda.cup.hp.com
In my Slot Car Mustangs flyer, they offer 1982 Lincoln Continental
spindles. They claim it provides more Ackerman steering.
I believe this means more toe-out when turning. If so I can use
it. Does anyone know about this mod?
They also suggest '92 tie-rod ends and offset rack bushings to
correct bump steer. I autocross regularly, but can only guess
that bump-steer is what it sounds like. My car seems to go where
it's pointed, and I autocross on some bumpy surfaces...
Clues appreciated.
28 May 1993
chucko@freud.arc.nasa.gov (Chuck Fry)
mustangs@hpda.cup.hp.com
On May 28, 9:34am, Joseph Weinstein wrote:
} In my Slot Car Mustangs flyer, they offer 1982 Lincoln Continental
} spindles. They claim it provides more Ackerman steering.
} I believe this means more toe-out when turning. If so I can use
} it. Does anyone know about this mod?
I know that other Mustangs readers are experimenting with it, but I will
leave it to them to explain further.
} They also suggest '92 tie-rod ends and offset rack bushings to
} correct bump steer. I autocross regularly, but can only guess
} that bump-steer is what it sounds like. My car seems to go where
} it's pointed, and I autocross on some bumpy surfaces...
Improvements in bump steer are most likely to help stability under braking,
and at corner entry. You don't want toe-out when the nose dives under
braking. (I forget which way the stock geometry goes.)
The tie rod ends and offset steering rack bushings are available from Central
Coast Mustangs, and I've had them in my car for about a year. They do make an
improvement in predictability of corner entry. CCM advertises the kit as a
must for lowered cars.
28 May 1993
FLETCHER@fsdvx2.arc.nasa.gov (Jay Fletcher)
mustangs@hpermsp.cup.hp.com
The improved tie rod ends are available on *'91* and later 5.0 mustangs.
Got em on my '91 convertible....
28 May 93
jkurien@watson.ibm.com (Jim Kurien)
joe@sybase.com (Joseph Weinstein)
> They also suggest '92 tie-rod ends and offset rack bushings to
> correct bump steer.
> Clues appreciated.
Chucko writes:
>The tie rod ends and offset steering rack bushings are available from
>Central Coast Mustangs, and I've had them in my car for about a year.
>They do make an improvement in predictability of corner entry.
For anyone considering getting the CCM setup, the June 93 issue of
SuperFord has a well illustrated article on how to install both
of these items. It goes over removing the stock rag joint steering
coupler and replacing it with a u-joint coupler CCM peddles as well.
It looks like a no-brainer, but they offer a few tips and gotchas which
are probably worth the $3.50.
28 May 93
bkelley@pms706.pms.ford.com (Brian Kelley)
joe@sybase.com
You may get some nasty steering shaft interference with MAC full length 1 5/8
headers and offset steering rack bushings. Keep this in mind with any
steering rack relocation.
15 Jun 1993
Ken_Corpus.Wbst139@xerox.com
Okay, here's the situation in a little more detail...
I've been reading the magazines and there are several places advertising all
kinds of Police parts for the Mustang, such as the computer chip/module, the
control arms and so on.
So, in an attempt to find out what these parts are, I had the parts man look up
the 5.0L Mustang and determine which pieces had a separate listing for Police
or Special Duty applications. As was mentioned, this is no small order.
There are some subtle difference such as the wheels, the rear axle ratio, and
the speedo (87 & up 140 MPH calibrated speedo E7ZZ-17255C), but the other parts
show no different applications for Police or Special Duty. We checked things
like cylinder heads, cam shafts, control arms, spindles, brakes, exhausts,
computer module and struts/shocks.
He even checked under the Calibration heading to see if there was any
differences in calibration specs for the Police pkg on these items, which might
indicate a difference in parts, but to no avail.
The only car that seems to list numerous parts for the special application of
Police or Special Duty is the Crown Vic.
The reason I am doing all this is to find out if these parts are being sold
under the false assumption that they are something special for the Police
Package Mustang, when in reality the parts are the same as the ones that came
stock on every 5.0L Mustang.
So far, nobody has been able to provide one part number to substantiate the
claim that the above mentioned parts are in fact truly Police/Special Duty.
15 Jun 1993
Scott.Griffith@eng.sun.com
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
> Okay, I've been quite skeptical about these places that have been selling
>parts labeled Special Police or Special or Heavy Duty, etc. So, I called my
>Ford parts man and asked him to look into it more, and he has been unable to
>find any parts that were specifically called out the application of POLICE.
>So, can anyone provide me with the actual Ford part numbers for the various
>parts that are claiming to be POLICE or Special Duty? This would help to
>better understand which parts are actually different on the Police car versus
>the normal 5.0L Mustang.
The thing to remember is that these were not originally _designed_ to
be used on the Mustang. They came out of the Crown Vic parts bin, and
were a running change installed on the police and taxi versions of the
car. The Ford doc for these parts will probably call out a Crown Vic
application, not "Mustang Police Special" or any more illuminating
wording. That's what made the damned things _so hard to find!_
But they are very real, and very different from the normal run of
production parts- they are _not_ snake oil. The claims made about
harder rubber compounds is true, and in particular the rear control
arms even have the word "POLICE" molded into the bushing material.
They aren't just production parts reboxed.
Here are the numbers I have:
E1BZ-3078-A LEFT FRONT CONTROL ARM
E1BZ-3079-A RIGHT FRONT CONTROL ARM
E3DZ-5500-A UPPER REAR ARM
E2BZ-5A649-A LOWER REAR ARM
E0BZ-5A638-B DIFFERENTIAL CENTER SECTION BUSHINGS
Hope that that helps in your search. I'll be very interested in
hearing what you find out, and what prices you can get these for.
Wed 16 Jun 93
Dave Wible - 'System'
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
Scott Griffith said:
>The thing to remember is that these were not originally _designed_ to
>be used on the Mustang. They came out of the Crown Vic parts bin, and
Don't you mean LTD not Crown Vic. The little LTD that looked like a
Fairmont, vintage early to mid 1980's.
16 Jun 1993
bstdenis@mailbox.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (Brian StDenis)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
> But they are very real, and very different from the normal run of
> production parts- they are _not_ snake oil. The claims made about
> harder rubber compounds is true, and in particular the rear control
> arms even have the word "POLICE" molded into the bushing material.
> They aren't just production parts reboxed.
>
> Here are the numbers I have:
>
> E1BZ-3078-A LEFT FRONT CONTROL ARM
> E1BZ-3079-A RIGHT FRONT CONTROL ARM
> E3DZ-5500-A UPPER REAR ARM
> E2BZ-5A649-A LOWER REAR ARM
> E0BZ-5A638-B DIFFERENTIAL CENTER SECTION BUSHINGS
>
> Hope that that helps in your search. I'll be very interested in
> hearing what you find out, and what prices you can get these for.
>
I have access to the Ford price tape. I had my source look up these
parts from the tape. Here is what it said:
Part Description List Dealer Year
E1BZ-3078-A Arm bushing and joint 88.20 52.92 Low 00 High 81
E1BZ-3079-A Arm bushing and joint " " " "
E3DZ-5500-A Arm and bush. assem. rear 54.22 32.53 Low 00 High 83
E2BZ-5A649-A Arm and assem. right rear, lower arm
136.77 82.06 Low 00 High 82
The last part was not listed. There was no special information about
Police use or anything like that.
Help any?
16 Jun 1993
bkelley@pms706.pms.ford.com (Brian Kelley)
mustangs@hpda.cup.hp.com
Tom Stangler writes:
>Full length headders,,,which ones did you choose?
I've got 1 1/2" Heddman's on my '85. The 4 into 1 is _junk_. It is
extremely chunky and sloppy. This area is also extremely difficult to
clean up with a die grinder. It isn't possible to stick your hand up in
the 3" collector, when you put your hand there you can't see, etc. The
price is pretty good though - you can get them for less than $99.
For most applications, I'd go with a 1 5/8" primary. I have not seen
the inside of the MAC headers. From what I have seen on the outside,
they look pretty good, though it is hard to tell without looking in the
collector. I think they're $160-$180.
After watching a fabricator at Roush for 20 minutes do a 4 into 1, I know
I can do a lot better than most of what is available.
For the J302 heads on the Capri with their large exhaust ports, I didn't
have many options. Any regular 1 5/8 (such as the MAC) would have
required a custom flange. If you just bolt'em on, the regular flange
would obstruct the port and create a flow nightmare. I went with the
SVO 1 3/4" primary headers for the J302. They're Very nice. I was
concerned that I'd be disappointed in the quality, but they're quite good.
And at $281, they should be! This engine is going to breathe.
The collectors are removable. I want to give the Flowmaster collectors
a try later this season. They could be a very big win.
I'd seriously consider combining a low-cost ($99 range) 1 5/8 header with
the Flowmaster collectors. They're about $60-$70 a pair. How you orient
these collectors will depend on the firing order of your engine and how
the 4 primary tubes are grouped together. Generally, you don't want
cylinders that fire back to back (such as 4-2 in a non-roller) adjacent in
the 2 into 1. You'd want to put 1&2 and 3&4 together, for instance.
The earlier 302's have a 1-5-4-2-6-3-7-8 firing order and the HO roller cam
engines have a 1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8 firing order. Flowmaster is supposed to
have a serious dyno facility under construction. From what I heard a while
ago it should be in operation now.
16 Jun 1993
Ken_Corpus.Wbst139@xerox.com
Per Scott's note on part numbers, I have included the retail prices:
E1BZ-3078-A LEFT FRONT CONTROL ARM (Retail $88.20)
E1BZ-3079-A RIGHT FRONT CONTROL ARM (Retail $88.20)
E3DZ-5500-A UPPER REAR ARM 55.22 (Retail $40.66)E2BZ-5A649-A LOWER REAR ARM
(Retail $136.77)
E0BZ-5A638-B DIFFERENTIAL CENTER SECTION BUSHINGS (Retail $13.68)
These parts are for the LTD II/Fairmont/Granada body style for Police/Taxi
application, which was a fox platform variation. They are not for the Crown
Vic by any means.
Any Ford honest Ford dealer ought to be able to give you at least a 10%
discount on the parts. Most dealers in my area will give our Mustang club
members a 25% discount. And as a business, I get at least a 25% discount, but
my price is based on their cost not retail.
If you've paid more than the above prices, you've paid too much. In fact, if
you've paid the above prices, you have also paid too much!
18 Jun 1993
Ken_Corpus.Wbst139@xerox.com
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
The Mustang Cobra parts are as follows:
F3ZZ-6049-B GT40 Heads with valves. Retail $708.42 each.
F3ZZ-9424-C GT40 Upper Intake Plenum. Retail $377.52.
The lower intake is the same part number as the stock GT manifold.
18 Jun 1993
Ken_Corpus.Wbst139@xerox.com
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
Okay, my last note stated the lower intake was the same as the GT, but further
investigation shows that may not be the case. Apparently, the lower intake,
fuel pump, throttle body, injectors and EGR spacer are available only through
Motorsports (ie: These would probably be the GT40 parts). That leads me to
believe that the GT40 upper intake and the Cobra unit are in fact different
parts (as Tom mentioned).
Here are some more numbers for you:
The camshaft is different for the Cobra:
F3ZZ-6250-A Retail $292.75
The valve covers are also different:
Left side shows up as an 86 part: E6AZ-6582-B Retail $74.55
Right side shows up as a TBird F1SZ-6582-A Retail $47.57
Apparently, the Cobra intake requires a different set of valve covers due to
the height difference. Can anyone confirm this?
PS: The heads I listed come complete with valve, but rockers are not included
as best we can tell.
17 Jun 1993
chrisbe@autodesk.com (Chris Behier)
mf@cc.bellcore.com
> Has anyone welded these in (or had them done) and can
> give me some instructions?
> (so I can pass them on to my welder).
> (the car is an 89 LX hatch)
I just received mine 2 days ago and I have been calling around
for the last 2 weeks to find out what is the best method in installing
these.
- The first thing I found out is that whoever has to install it has to
remove your seats and lift the carpet. One of the welding points is
right under the front seating area. This will damage your carpet if it
is not done.
- The second thing I heard (which I am not sure of) is that the car
has to be sitting on its wheels (not jacked up by its frame) to weld
these on. They told me that it can produce "sagging" of the chassis.
Someone on the net could probably have an better opinion about this
one.
- My Speed shop provided me with 4 more plates (2 triangular, 2
rectangular) to reinforce the installation. The rectangular plates are
to be placed between the front of the bar and the "under the seat" add
on plate from Global West. The triangular plates are to be installed
at the rear (end) of the bar, to reinforce that weld point. I got
these plates free when I bought the connectors.
- So far, I have had a quote of $125.00 at one Mustang shop (they deal
in old model mustangs racing applications, San Jose, CA) where the
quality of their weld is really good. I went there to check out their
welding, because these Subrame Connectors works as good as their
welding quality.
That is as much as I know, if anyone else has better suggestions
let us both know. It seems that we are in the same boat here.
Marc, if you live in the northern part of California (because
I think I saw a Bellcore building in San Francisco), let me know if you
get a recommended place around here.
21 Jun 1993
danielne@symantec.com (Daniel Neuwirth)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
>I wanted to ask you about the chip. This was recommended by someone to
>me. Why did you buy this over the hypertech chip?? Where did you
>buy it from and for how much? (i saw it mail order for $159 (US)).
>The person that recommended it to me says he got a thermostat (180
>degree), with the chip. He said it gave recommendations for timing,
>putting in this thermostat etc. Is this like what you got? Have you
>noticed a big difference with it in? Would you recommend it? Thanks
>for any info. >
Brad:
I picked up the ADS chip at a local SuperShops store
(hotrod/performance chain store). I paid about $159 for it, and had
to wait about six weeks for delivery. I talked to a lot of people
in the industry, and they all told me that the two chips were about
the same. At the time, the HyperTech chip was running about $75-$100
more, and I was on a REALLY limited budget.
Yes, the ADS chip comes with a 160 degree thermostat (the stock thermo
is 180deg), and also came with an "octane bar". This is a little
L-shaped metal piece that replaces the stock "octane bar" in your
distributor. Also, the instructions (all on one side of a 5"x8"
card) recommend bumping the timing to 12 degrees. Only one
limitation: With the above settings, gone are the days of using 87-90
octane gas. You WILL HAVE TO USE 92+ octane gases. So if you're
using lower grade fuels, your gas bill will go up each month.
Following the instructions, it took a little over a half-hour to do
the whole thing, from module to thermo to the octane bar.
As far as "feeling" the difference with and without the chip, I really
didn't feel any difference. Bear in mind, I added/changed each mod
at a different time on my car (first the FlowMasters, then the K&N,
etc). And I didn't really feel anything going from any mod to the
next addition. I don't even really feel any difference now. However,
I have on occasion driven people around who tell me that my 'stang
"feels" somewhat faster than other stock Mustangs they've been in.
Overall, I wouldn't really recommend the chip to anybody else unless
you've already got every $150 mod you can get and are looking for
another cheap 1/10 or so (I personally wouldn't expect more than .1
to .15 more with the chip, ADS's 20-30hp increase rating can't even
be felt). Also, bear in mind that HyperTech's and ADS's "+15",
"+20", etc ratings are usually at 5000+ RPM as well. So they
really won't help you unless you're already doing 45-50 in first gear.
I've heard roughly the same things about the HyperTech module, too.
I'd personally recommend FlowMasters (or equivalent other brands), a
K&N air filter (this is a MUST!!!), removing the Air Intake Silencer
(free, 10 minutes to do it, and a .05-.1 increase!) and bumping the
timing first. Then if you wish, go for a chip.
I also have never run my car at a track, either, so I don't really
have any numbers to compare it to. I'm removing the Air Silencer
tonight and taking it up to Los Angeles County Raceway this Friday
night, so I'll have some real definite numbers next week (with my
mods, I'm expecting 15.3 to 15.6 at that elevation - about 15.0-15.3
corrected).
23 Jun 1993
Scott.Griffith@eng.sun.com
Subject: Re: Fog light mount
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
On Jun 21, Andre Molyneux wrote:
> This past weekend I removed the two (broken) fog lights from my
> '85 Capri to get rid of the dead weight. The lights were bolted
> to a good-sized metal bracket on the lower part of the air dam
> (the Capri has the big squared-off air dam like the early 80's
> Mustangs). I can't see much purpose behind having this bracket
> aside from providing a place to mount the fog lights and to
> stiffen the air dam a little. Can anyone give me a good reason
> *not* to remove this additional weight as well (it also blocks
> some airflow to the radiator)? The paint on the air dam is already
> cracked, so keeping the air dam from flexing to save the paint
> isn't a concern.
I have removed the bracket and foglights on my '86 GT to save weight,
and because I wanted to reuse the foglight holes for my brake cooling
scoops. I replaced the 15lb bracket and light combo with 5 small 1/8"
x 1" x 2" tabs of galvanized strip stock, and used those to stiffen
the bottom edge of the front fascia by connecting it back to the
radiator support- there are provisions in the sheetmetal for mounting
brackets of just that size. Your Capri may vary a bit, but this trick
will probably work.
Without stiffening, the front fascia will collapse from the aerodynamic
pressures it sees at above about 70 mph. It may resonate, and if it
does the plastic itself will crack and fail, leaving the air dam with
something of a problem. Several listers who removed the stiffening
stuff have encounteresd this. It needs _something_ to help it out, but
it certainly doesn't need that massive chunk of ironmongery that Ford
saddled it with. % little straps weigh about 6 ounces, and are all you
really need.
Next time we get together for lunch, look at mine. It's held up just
fine, even at the aerodynamic top end limit for the car. And it didn't
bother me to take 15lb off the very nose of the car, either...
28 Jun 1993
jkurien@watson.ibm.com (Jim Kurien)
Bob Pitas wrote:
> Sunday I welded in some subframe connectors that I'd made up ...
> After fitting them in, I had to drive down a bumpy dirt road to return
> a grinder and I noticed that it seemed more solid over the bumps. Nothing
> I could nail down, just more "solid"....
> Can someone tell me what type of handling differences SFCs should cause?
When I first got mine in, there was definitely a more "solid" feel
to my car's tired old body. The seats are no longer tearing the
floorpan out either.
Before the subframes, my car would slightly vibrate when driven between
70 and 75mph. I checked out some of the most obvious causes. In the end
I marked it up as a temporary "Don't Do That Then" since for the moment
I don't drive the car that fast or that often. After putting in the
subframes I noticed the vibration had _magically_ disappeared.
I've also noticed differences in two corners. Both are relatively
the symptoms that you're seeing. The other cause could be
that the cable may actually be fraying, and the individual strands
separating could be binding. If you had to replace it, I would say go
for the aluminum quadrant too. It's about $120, and includes a new
cable and release fork.
1 Jun 1993
pedersen@aio.jsc.nasa.gov
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
>On May 28, 9:34am, Joseph Weinstein wrote:
>} In my Slot Car Mustangs flyer, they offer 1982 Lincoln Continental
>} spindles. They claim it provides more Ackerman steering.
>} I believe this means more toe-out when turning. If so I can use
>} it. Does anyone know about this mod?
>
>I know that other Mustangs readers are experimenting with it, but I will
>leave it to them to explain further.
>
>} They also suggest '92 tie-rod ends and offset rack bushings to
>} correct bump steer. I autocross regularly, but can only guess
>} that bump-steer is what it sounds like. My car seems to go where
>} it's pointed, and I autocross on some bumpy surfaces...
>
>Improvements in bump steer are most likely to help stability under
>braking, and at corner entry. You don't want toe-out when the nose
>dives under braking. (I forget which way the stock geometry goes.)
>
>The tie rod ends and offset steering rack bushings are available from
>Central Coast Mustangs, and I've had them in my car for about a year.
>They do make an improvement in predictability of corner entry. CCM
>advertises the kit as a must for lowered cars.
> -- Chuck
As part of the Slot Car front suspension improvements in ackerman and bump
steer, you also need to relocate the rack up and backward. Relocating the
rack up and backward will cause big interference problems with the
crossmember which can be cured with a big grinder and a hammer but this is
a big pain and very time consuming. Unless you move the crossmember
forward (another Slot Car mod) relocating the rack will also make the
steering shaft too long which means you have to slot some holes and do some
more screwing around with a grinder.
You also need some relatively expensive ($40?) tapered bushings from CCM in
order to install the continental spindles on Mustang ball joints. Don't
buy the continental spindles from Slot Car unless lots of extra money to
blow. John Quick gets them from a junk yard for about $15 a pair and they
may or may not be bent from a wreck.
The continental spindles also have a longer snout which interferes with the
dust caps on some disks (about 1/8" clearance problem). Apparently some
disks have a taller hat than others and I have found no correlation as to
which ones or to why this is so. You would either have to poke a hole in
the dust cap or cut off the end of the spindle if you found you had the
shorter disks. Other than that, the spindles are an easy and direct swap.
The Slot Car mods also use a longer control arm which also changes the bump
steer curves. The amount of caster affects bump steer. Etc., etc. etc.
Saying that some trick part will improve this and cure this or that is
complete bull. You have to come up with an integrated package and test
that package before you will come up with something that handles well.
Otherwise it is a hit or miss proposition.
The latest Super Ford has an article on bump steer that will get you
started in the right direction.
(Many of these mods are also illegal for SCCA Solo II FS and ESP.)
01 Jun 1993
David Gonzales (General)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
Rob asked:
> I just need to know if a lot of the good parts that I want to add
will be able to work with my CFI injection setup. Any and all
suggestions would be taken into consideration.
The C.F.I. (throttle body fuel injection) engine was available in the
'84-'85 mustangs (and some others, such as Lincoln LSC), automatic
transmission only. The manual trans. V8 cars came with a carbureted
engine. This is NOT the same
engine as in your mom-and-pop '85 Crown Victoria. It is a true H.O.
engine, different firing order, much more power, etc.
These engines have the EEC-IV system, and use a speed-density setup.
There is no Mass air conversion available. Any pre-mass air type
hopups will probably work. A 180 degreee thermostat, advance the timing
and use super unleaded, Ram air, etc. A true-dual exhaust would help,
but since top end power is limited (stock 185 hp ? ), stick to smaller
exhaust sizes. You won't need 2 1/2 pipes-- there just isn't enough
flow to use them. A great place for someone's leftover '86 up stock exhaust?
A 3.73 rear gear would make a world of difference. Off the line you
would be as quick as the new ones.
If you want lots of power over the entire range, think about converting
to a carbureted setup. Dollar for horsepower, it's your best buy.
Unfortunately, you won't meet emission laws this way, not cheaply anyways.
You can always swap in a newer more powerful engine, or sell your '85
and buy a newer car. Talk about options!
Any other information? I too have an '85 C.F.I. car...info for these
cars is sparse...
14 Jun 1993
Scott.Griffith@eng.sun.com
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
On Jun 2, Chris Drake wrote:
> I ran the KOER self tests today and it came back with a 44, and 94.
> This translates into bank1, and 2 have a thermactor error.
> The diverter valve falls
> into the what-the-f#$k bucket with the air pump so any clues
> in either case would be great.
What these codes mean is that during the KOER, the test that cycles
the solenoids that control the air flow from the air pump didn't seem
to make a change that the EEC-IV could detect. The diverter valve
directs the flow of air from the air pump to one of two destinations-
during warmup, it sends it to the exhaust ports, to provide extra
oxygen to cause the cats to light off more quickly, and then after
warmup it diverts the air flow downstream to the secondary cats to
help them handle cooties, or NOx emissions, or whatever it is they're
supposed to be doing then.
When the air is directed upstream to the exhaust ports, the oxygen
sensors see an artificially lean condition. When the air is directed
downstream, it is injected downstream of the O2 sensors, so they no
longer see this artificial lean condition. That particular portion of
the KOER test cycles the flow up- and downstream, and looks for the
transitions on the 02 sensors. What it's telling you is that no matter
how hard it wiggled the valve, it didn't see a transition on either
bank. This means that either the flow isn't getting diverted, or the
air pump isn't putting out any flow.
If only one bank showed the problem, it could be the plumbing to that
bank or the O2 sensor. But since they're both acting up, it's likely
the pump or valves. To really debug further, you need an H manual. But
you can check the plumbing and the valves pretty easily. There's also
a wiggle test for those solenoids- opening the throttle wide open
momentarily after the last code in the KOEO test will energize both of
them, so they should have +12 on on pin and ground on the other.
Opening the throttle again wil de-energize both of them. So they
should have +12v on _both_ pins ( the EEC_IV switches the ground side
to control these solenoids).
28 Jun 1993
Scott.Griffith@eng.sun.com
On Jun 28, Chuck Fry wrote:
> Jay Fletcher wrote:
> } I've been running about -1.5 deg camber on the front of my '91 with the stock
> } Goodyear ZR-55's since March. I also run 40 psi front and 35 psi rear (cold).
> } I recently rotated the tires and noticed a fairly pronounced acceleration of
> } the wear pattern on the inside tread block row.
>
> Yup, that's negative camber wear. This is the price you pay in a
> straight line for having extra cornering grip. For a Mustang that only
> sees street duty, 1 1/2 degrees negative is probably a bit excessive.
> For track use, it's still not enough...
Well, remember that there are _three_ things that combine to give
uneven wear up front- pressure, camber, and toe. Negative camber will
give you inner edge wear, toe out will give you inner edge wear, toe
in will give you outer edge wear. So if you've gone toe-out to get
better turn-in response, and you have a lot of negative camber (which
1.5deg _isn't_), you'll get a double whammy on inner edge wear.
I usually run zero toe, and 2.5deg negative camber. If the wear gets
annoying (like it did this winter, since I left my soft full-depth
Goodyear ZRS rain tires mounted up to commute on due to the wet
winter- no A008Rs in the rain for me!), I dial in maybe 1/16" toe in
to help null out the wear from the camber. If you have soft springs
and a lot of bump steer, the toe change is worsened in the toe-out
direction.
You can play with the pressures, but if you're getting angled wear,
you'd do well to check your toe setting as well. 1.5deg negative
camber should not be excessive on the street.
> When I used Gatorbacks, I'd always see some odd wear patterns. I don't
> think it's anything to worry about. Just keep to a regular rotation
> schedule and everything should even out.
Now _there's_ a fact worth keeping in mind. Over the years I've become
convinced that the only thing the hard compound Skatorbacks are really
good at is wearing out. They must not cost much in large production
volumes, and the Goodyear sales guy who works Ford must be one wealthy
sucker by now. But IMHO they just aren't very good tires, for either
grip or life. The Michelin OEM tires beat them, hands down.
Now, Goodyear's R-compound tires are another story. And if anybody
here wants to try some really sticky track tires and lives in the Bay
Area, I have 3 225/50-16 Goodyear GSCS scuffs, shaved to 0/32" (call
'em slicks!) which I'll part company with for $10 each. And I can get
you the 4th scuffed tire you need for the set. I'm going back to
Yokohamas... And no, at that price I won't ship 'em out of here,unless you
want to pay the freight.
08 Jul 1993
bkelley@pms706.pms.ford.com (Brian Kelley)
[ This was going to be a direct response. However, I thought some of the
comments might save someone some time, so I'm posting ]
Hi Clifton,
Ah, exhaust system work! I hate it, I hate it, I ...
I'm installing the 1 3/4" primary SVO headers on the Capri tonight.
The larger and thicker Lakewood bellhousing makes this especially
fun. Aluminum heads don't help either - those threads are more
delicate. The large primary size makes things very tight... But
no A/C or O2 sensor or AIR injection to deal with. I'm borrowing
torches to cut away more of the bellhousing and to bend some of the
pipes for clearance (better than denting them). I've already removed a
fair bit of material from the bellhousing to get everything to bolt
together while hanging on the cherry picker. Things were a fair bit tighter
once installed. Once they're all fit they come out again and get wrapped
with header tape...
Oh, FYI, the passenger side header must be removed to remove the
starter :-( I sure hope it lasts the season...
This is not an evening I'm looking forward to. But I've got a friend
there to help me (and mainly keep me sane! I don't want to resort to
the Big hammer...).
>After a quick temper tantrum (it had building from all of the
>other little problems I had hit),
Yup.. My Hedman full length headers were a major pain. The drivers
side wasn't even close to being properly located. It ran right into
the floorpan! There was _no way_ it could be connecting to even a custom
H-pipe without being heated and bent. And they of course tell you that
bending, denting, etc will void your warranty... Someone who regularly
installs the Hedmans says you don't need to heat them - just stick a long
pipe in the collector and wrench them over (I don't like that much though).
I find it very helpful to get a can of Gunk and clean the car at the
car wash before undertaking a project like this.
>This went pretty well, exept for one nut which did not want to
>start, and it was the most inconvenient one to get at, of course. (note
>to others that follow: test fit these nuts first, and clean up the
>threads if there is *any* interference). I finally got it on after
>cross threading it once, which really helped get it on there correctly
>(NOT!).
Forget it! Spend the $2.00 and go buy new grade 8 hardware! There is
_no way_ it is worth the time to deal with that old hardware. In fact,
if the bolts are at all messed up, I'll just cut them with a die-grinder
rather than deal with un-bolting them (since I'll be tossing them anway).
>There is only about a 1/2"-3/4" gap between one of the header tubes and
>the shock tower.
Heh. It looks like 'll be lucky if I have 3/16" in places.
>I had also thought about welding in my GW subframe connectors, but
>chickened out because I don't have much experience with my MIG yet, and
>I was just plain tired.
Definitely get some solid experience with the MIG welding both vertically
and upside-down before you do that job. Also, be sure and do a serious
job of grinding the car body where you will be welding. If your car is
undercoated (I hope not), you're going to run into problems. You may
want to use a torch (propane is fine) to pre-heat the area and burn away
any undercoating that will burn away anyway. The fumes from the burning
undercoating will tend to interfere with your welds. That high carbon/zinc
body steel is difficult to weld. It takes a steady hand - you want to stay
within your puddle. Do use a fan to keep the area well ventilated - the
fumes are toxic (but don't blow the shield gas away from the weld surface).
Expect to re-do some of your welds unless you've had some good practice.
I strongly suggest a die-grinder and a good carbide bit (3/8 to 1/2" or so),
though carbide isn't good for surface prep.
>All in all, the header installation turned out to be a real bitch.
It was an excellent write-up. It accurately conveyed the frustration
and sweat associated with header/exhaust work. At first glance it can look
like a simple job. The instructions may even lead you to believe that.
You don't find out what a bitch it is until your car is in pieces and you
can't really return the headers because it isn't worth putting it all back
together only to take it apart and install someone else's product..
Based on your post, I would personally avoid the BBK's. I'd spend the
money and get a full length set of MACs or even the Hedmans if you're really
on a tight budget (plug access is quite decent). You'll pay a little more
for the MAC H-pipe and headers, but I'd say it is worth it.
13 Jul 1993
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
racefab@pms706.pms.ford.com
On Jul 12, Pete Paraska wrote:
> I've heard that you can put a weld bead in a floor pan, etc. to "shrink"
> the metal, thus tightening it to make the chassis in a Unibody car stiffer.
> Is there any truth to this?
I'm not certain that this will accomplish much in the way of "stiffening". I
am pretty certain, though, that it will help make the tub more brittle, or
subject to cracking at the newly added welds. One of the wonderful things
about unibody cars is that the stresses are applied over large areas of formed
panels, and the actual stress in a panel is pretty uniform. Stick a weld bead
down the middle of a panel, and I suspect that its fatigue life will suffer.
You have just created a very nice discontinuity in the panel, and that is the
operational definition of a stress riser. I could be totally wrong, but in my
efforts to strengthen unibody chassis, I have found the biggest challenge to
be attaching things to panels or panel joins in such a way that the panel
doesn't eventually crack and fail.
I have removed the Z-cars list from this reply, since I haven't ever played
with a Z-car. You'd do well to get in touch with some of the many shops that
have successfuly built Z-cars for IT. Some of those cars are _bricks_, and I'd
love to know how they did it!
Dirk Broer wrote:
> Consider a strut tower brace - tying the top of the struts to the fire
> wall. This gives reasonable triangulation to keep the top of the
> struts where you want them. This is particulary good in controling
> the camber angle during hard cornering. I don't think there's enough
> in the sheet metal to give you much stiffness.
and Nathan Ulrich responded:
> Your suggestion makes more sense than the typical strut tower to strut
> tower brace. But in my opinion, this is one of the biggest lies
> perpetrated by people trying to sell strut tower braces.
Well, I run the same general type of car as Dirk (a late model Mustang), and I
have to say that there are some cars whose chassis really can benefit from
this treatment. The Mustang is certainly one of them. Even with my fully
triangulated strut tower brace, I can deflect the front clip of my car enough
to overlap the hood over the front fender by about 1/4", and chip all the
paint off the hood and fender in the area. Admittedly, this is in _very_
extreme cornering (in the Corkscrew at Laguna Seca), but the deflections are
very real. In fact, the strut towers are distorted at the brace mounts. I
shudder to think what the front of the chassis would be like without that
brace! So there are chassis designs that may benefit tremendously from
external stiffening of this type.
I just have no clue at all if the Z-car is one of them. Sounds like the 944
isn't. Your mileage may indeed vary, and it depends upon the tub, your driving
style, the weight of the car, and whether or not your tracks involve virtual
diving boards like that one...
Stiffening a unibody is a very difficult task. If you stiffen a panel system
that was designed for a certain level of compliance, you raise the stresses
experienced by the panels next door. It's a never-ending battle.
08 Jul 1993
bkelley@pms706.pms.ford.com (Brian Kelley)
mustangs@hpda.cup.hp.com
Alan Kennedy wrote:
> I have a friend who has bought some 6-spd transmissions from Ford,
>I beleive they were test trannys, He is going to be selling them , from what
>he has been told the will bolt right up to the 5.0 .
It probably is not a good idea to advertise stolen parts, which is what
these most likely are if they came from Ford. Ford does not sell test
parts . They either get used internally or are destroyed. Parts
cannot be salvaged from destruction - it is still considered theft.
I wonder if the serial numbers have been altered.
The only exception are entire cars which are sometimes sold through regular
dealerships.
I would be very cautious about spending any significant amount of money
on test parts, knowing how they get treated.
25 Aug 1993
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
Well, I dusted off the track tires, and loaded up the car for a trip
down to Laguna Seca for the Ferrari Owner's Club track event
yesterday. I was signed on as their chief driving instructor, so I got
to take my poor old Pony out amongst the true exotica, and got in a
lot of track time by sleazing my way into essentially all the run
groups as instructor. I also got to ride in, and drive, a number of
very interesting cars as part of the bargain (like a Maserati Bora,
for example), but that's another (non-Mustang) story.
This was the first track event that I had my new gages, so I finally
got a decent indication of conditions under the hood for the first
time in the car's long track career. It was also the first time I ran
the oil cooler, the first outing for some new prototype CC Motorsport
high-Cf rear brake pads, and it was _supposed_ to be my first outing
running the Lincoln front spindles, with their different steering
geometry. Most of that actually happend, except for the spindles...
I had bought two sets of Lincoln spindles from my usual used parts
vendor. When they came in, one set was mismatched (one spindle was the
Mustang part, and not the Lincoln part), and its mate was visibly bent
anyway, with a twisted steering arm. But the other set was in pretty
decent shape, so I got them bead-blasted and Magnifluxed, and
installed them over the weekend during my final track prep (with major
thanks to list member Marty Udisches, who happened by at just the
right time to get drafted into wrenching).
Took the car to the alignment shop on Monday morning, to realign it
after the spindle change, and get ready for Tuesday's fun. I then got
a call from the shop midday. The left spindle was junk. The spindle
nose itself was bent between the inner and outer bearing race, on the
taper radius, as if perhaps the donor car had been rolled. The outer
bearing seat was out of concentricity about 30 thousandths with
respect to the inner (remember that clearance problem we fixed, Marty?
It was real after all...). A frantic trip back to the house got my old
spindles down to them in time to get them reinstalled and the
alignment finished off, so that I could head for the track at the
crack of dawn the next morning. I _hate_ paying someone to take bad
parts off my car, but the time was too short for me to do it myself.
Caveat emptor, no? I'll be getting my money back on those spindles.
Anyway, running the car on the highway, the water temp stabilizes
at 185degF (180degF thermostat), the oil temp stabilizes at 190degF,
and the oil pressure stabilizes at 50psi at 2000rpm.
On the track is another story. The water temp never got over 220degF
even at the end of the hardest sessions on a very warm (high 80s) day.
Most of the day it stabilized at 210degF. But the oil temps got up a
bit more than I'd like to see. I usually saw 240degF at the end of a
session, and got up to just over 250degF a few times. At these times,
I'd be down to 45psi at 5000rpm. When I got to 250degF, I started
shortshifting at 4500 instead of 5000, out of paranoia.
I shudder to think what I was getting for oil temps and pressures
before installing the cooler. I'd imagine that there were easily
300degF spells. Anyone who ever wanted to know why I've paid good
money to run synthetics all these years- there's why!
The oil pressure bothers me, but I realize that I had probably been
down around 50psi all along. I'm sure that I'm losing 3-5psi due to
frictional losses in the hoses, cooler, and remote filter head, even
though I did quite a lot of cleanup with my Dremel before installing
them.
On the positive side, I also discovered that my ohshit light comes on
at 32psi, not the 20psi I had thought- so the little blinks I've been
getting under heavy braking worry me a bit less nowadays.
True good news/bad news data. I'll clean up the plumbing a little more
before the next outing, but rest assured that there's a high-volume
oil pump in my not-too-distant future. Just as soon as it rolls over
100K miles...
The trick rear pads worked marvelously. For the first time I was able
to lock up the rear brakes, so the front/rear brake bias was finally
in the ballpark. With this improved balance (and the significant
alteration of my line that it allowed, especially entering and leaving
the Corkscrew), I was able to take a full 2 seconds off my personal
best lap time at Laguna, lowering it to 1:53.28. With a passenger
(list member Scott Hirose, who also experienced a planned Track
Vacation day to come down and crew and bum rides) on board to run the
watch! There might be 52's or possibly even 51's in the car, flying
solo.
Best of all, front rotor and pad temps never exceeded 1400degF, and
rear rotor temps finally got _up_ to 1200degF. It's right nice having
rear brakes that work. That alone reduced the front brake temps by a
minimum of 300degF, which is a huge win.
So since the powertrain and the brakes were actually working,
something else had to step up as the weak link. At the end of my last
session (and just after setting fast time), I blistered the Yoko
A008RS on the right front corner, running at 48psi hot. I ripped a
couple of 4-inch square patches off the outer shoulder, down to the
header rubber fabric belt. The car picked up a bit of a shake, and a
helluva push, for the last lap or two. That's the first time I've ever
destroyed a Yoko. This tire killing is getting _old_. That was with
2deg negative camber. Next time out, I'm going for 3+. The Yokos need
much, _much_ more negative than the GSCSs did.
A mixed day. Lots of fun, lots of fun cars to play with. I ended up
being about 4th quick, behind a pair of F40s and a Z51 Corvette, but
ahead of a lot of megabuck machinery whose owners didn't care to
really push their cars, including another F40 and a 288 GTO. All my
machinations to land some F40 seat time came to naught. Boo. Maybe
next time.
One wierd thing. It was a very odd feeling to pull into the paddock,
unload the tools, jack, track spares, and race rubber from the car,
and jack it up and start changing over the tires. I was the only
person in the paddock who had brought any _tools_...
rec.autos.rod-n-custom
mrshirle@mtu.edu (MARK R. SHIRLEY)
25 Sep 1993
Dave Williams (dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us) wrote:
: -> set up. Will the disc brake parts from the 66 Mustang work okay as
: -> an easy swap?
: Yep, but you could probably find Maverick parts much cheaper.
:
I have found that the complete spindle assembly outward on the following
vehicles to be a direct bolt-on for your chassis.
1966-67 Mustang/Cougar with 4 piston calipers
1967 Fairlane/Comet/Montego with 4 piston calipers
1968-1973 Mustang/Cougar with 1 piston calipers
1968-73 Fairlane/Torino with 1 piston c.
Surprise!
1975-80 GRANADA! with 1 piston calipers!
Single piston calipers a much less-trouble prone than 4 pistons.
10 Sep 1993
dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)
classic-mustangs@mustang.fc.hp.com
-> I'm thinking that the spindles are the same. I know that there are
-> pinto spindles that will work. A friend of mine used some on his 65.
The spindles probably would work. The M2 and Pinto are fairly close
relatives of the '66 Mustang. Here's the evolutionary tree:
'60 - '66 Falcon
'65 - '66 Mustang
'67 - '77? Maverick
'70 - '74 Pinto
'74 - '80 Pinto
'75 - '77? Mustang II
The early Mustangs and Falcons are identical and interchangeable
underneath. In '67 the two got upsized and the old floorpan was
reskinned as the Maverick, which always looked cleaner than the older
bodies, at least to me. The Maverick was essentially unchanged
throughout its entire production run.
In '70 Ford introduced the Pinto, which was basically a cut-down
Maverick. In fact, the early Pintos bore Maverick parts numbers and VIN
codes - a friend of mine had serial number 512. There are quite a few
common parts. For example, the entire rear end assembly, springs, and
all interchange despite the English Ford wheel bolt pattern. There were
significant structural changes ahead of the firewall - a real
crossmember instead of the bolted in pipe, replacing the steering box
with rack and pinion, and moving the springs down to the lower A-arm to
get a lower hood line. The A-arms are both different from a Mustang, as
are the bushings. When the second-generation Pinto was released the
front end was significantly beefed to provide strength for the 302,
which came out in the next year's Mustang II. The Mustang II is a
Pinto, the same way an early Mustang was a Falcon.
The main problem with the Pinto/M2 A-arms is that they are long and
have a narrow base. This means they're not as strong as they could be,
and they feed a LOT of bending load into the chassis. The brakes are
pretty wimpy even if they are discs, and they only come in the 4 on 4.25
bolt pattern.
-> thus gaining mucho room in the engine compartment. You also get the
-> rack and pinion steering.
You can lop off the spring towers and run Chrysler torsion bars for a
fraction of the cost, and still gain lots of room - but the upper A-arm
pivots are still smack in the way of the cylinder heads for a 351W or
351C. You *can* get to the plugs, but it's a pain. Going to a
different layout isn't really going to help much. I went through all
this when I was trying to fit a 351X into a '61 Falcon.
The rack and pinion steering is no big deal despite all the hooraw. A
conventional steering box and linkage gives you much better control over
Ackermann and bump steer effects anyway. I couldn't see changing from
one to the other unless there was a clearance problem for a swap.
27 Sep 1993
OADDAB@STDVAX.GSFC.NASA.GOV (DIRK BROER)
mustang@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
> Based on the info I got, it looks like a lean mixture. What is a good
>way to track down the vacuum leak if the guage indicates one? I used to
>use carborator cleaner sprayed around the intake and carb on my older cars.
>Will this method work? Is it best to get an underhood or passenger compartment
>fuel guage? What brands have worked for ya'll? I've seen a combo regulator
and >guage for around $100. I think it was made by ASP or Accel.
Unfortunately tracking down a vacumm leak at idle may be tough on a FI car.
The oxygen sensor should compensate for any variations in air/fuel ratio.
Perhaps a quick squirt of carb cleaner would slow down the engine but I'm
not sure. I'd get an accurate vacumm gauge and start there. I'm wondering
if your MAF sensor is properly calibrated? Under full throttle/high rpm a
small vacumm leak should not lean out the mixture that much. If you had
a vacumm leak the computer would compensate by adding extra fuel. As your
engine load increased the computer would add even more fuel. A small crack
in a gasket would not flow enough air when compared to the air moving
through the throttle plate. I'd really double check that fuel delivery
system. Since you mentioned you use the cheaper gas - some of which may
not contain the same detergents as the higher octane - rip-off gas.
As for a fuel pressure gauge. To mount it inside you'd need a way to
isolate the fuel from the driver's compartment. The Autometer Isolation
system is not made for beyond 15psi (ie. its made for carbs). Your only
solution is to mount it outside / on the hood (if you need to see it while
you drive) or on or near the fuel rail if you need it only when you tune.
> One other quick question. Has anyone had any luck with the MSD 6A or
>Jacobs Electronics spark boxes? Are they of any value on a street car that
>sees frequent stoplight to stoplight races? Thanks again.
My understanding is the Jacobs' is not a multi-spark system. There both
CDI or Capacitive Discharge systems. Of all the articals I've read I have
never seen a WOT increase due to the MSD (definitly more popular for
drag racing). The chief advantage to MSD is the ability to fire unevenly
distributed fuel mixtures. Such as those seen on radically cammed, single
plane intakes. At idle the flow velocity is so slow that the air/fuel
mixture doesn't get distributed evenly. The richer cylinders need more /
earlier spark to get a good ignition. Typical results are being able to
drop your Pro-Stocker's idle speed from 1100 rpm to 700 rpm.
Bottom line - If you have perfect fuel distribution (Ford FI has to be
close to pass emissions) at idle the MSD and Jacobs won't make any
difference. For $140 (Jegs and Summit I think) you could spend your
money better (whats a good cam cost?).
If someone has document a performance increase due to an MSD or Jacobs
ignition please post it. Inquiring minds want to know.
29 Sep 1993
Dan Malek
>>> Code
>>> Open Diff Traction-Lok Ratio
>>> 8 M 2.73
>>> Y Z 3.08
>>> F R 3.45 (?)
>>> 5 E 3.27
>>> 6 W 3.73 (?)
>>End of exerpt from Scott Griffith
FYI, the 3.45 and 3.73 are the 7.5 rears used in the SVO. The 3.45 was
used only in the first year '84 models. The 3.73 was used for the later
models, and was accompanied by a gear ratio change in the tranny.
29 Sep 1993
Ryan Leahy
> Also you could add a remote battery - One way to disable the whole system
> is to punch a hole in the battery - let the acid drip out - come back a
> few minutes later and take what you want....
>
> You can get a backup battery - mount the battery in the trunk ...
For those of you who think of yourselves as crafty individuals, I have seen
a second,regular sized, battery mounted behind the center console arm rest
on the hump. It was in a LX 5.0 with the cheapo interior. He had mad a custom
cover for the battery that was the same height as the center arm rest and
just slighlty wider. The length of the cover ran from the back of the
center arm rest all the way to the front of the rear seats. It looked
very stock looking. At first I thought it may had been an early late
model option(?T-tops?), it was an 88 model, but on seeing the enourmous
stereo, reconsidered my first assumption. I sat in it (using the rear
seat) to get the fit. It made a very nice arm rest, considering that
my legs would definately not get a rest from the cramp leg room.
A second battery would require an isolator. These can be found in marine
catalogs for much less money than in car stereo shops/catalogs.
30 Sep 1993
Marty Udisches
Chris Behier writes:
>the 155L/hr pump. Charlies Mustangs (Charlie) mentioned that a fuel pressure
of >42 to 43 psi seems to be good with a blower, so a Fuel Pressure Regulator
and a >guage (make it a permanent one for ease of use and looks that sits on
your fuel >rail) is necessary.
Uhh, ok. So, where'd this magic 42-43 psi number come from? Thin air? Dyno
time? What was used to determine whether the mixture was correct? The stock
HEGO sensors? An aftermarket EGT sensor?
Remember to separate fact from fiction on this stuff. It ain't rocket
science, but it does require some thought, testing and adjustment any time
you're talking about some-thing as radical as a blower. Not that a blower is
as radical as some other mods, but it sure changes the complexity of the
motor.
Yeah, you'll need a FPR and gauge, but be sure to ask WHY!!
29 Oct 1993
chrisbe@smtpcc.autodesk.com
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
Here is a mostly complete list of the changes in the Mustang lineup since
1987. There are a few more items that I haven't had time to merge into this
file, but you get the basic idea... If you have any corrections or additions,
I'd like to hear them (I've been meaning to finish this for a while).
Here are some more details :
Between 1989 - 1992 : Changed the annoying floating coolant sensor that used
to clog up with an electrode type sensor. Also they placed felt strips of
tape between components of the dash to eliminate squeaking. In 1990 they took
out the Arms rest for some weird reason and placed a new one in 1991 which I
believe has not foam padding on the top lid (1989 the used to have it).
Sometime in this period they redesigned the rear sitting compartment for the
convertibles too. Anyone on the net know when these things happened ??
1990 - Loss of the tilt steering wheel adjustment.
1991 - Don't forget to mention the 16" size wheels (the previous mail just
mentions 225/55 rubber)
1992 (I think or maybe 1991)- The convertible top rear "strip" holding down
the vinyl top just above the rear window was removed - makes it a much cleaner
top.
1992
>Side moldings were painted to match the cars color instead of using black
>on all models. Tires were switched to Michelin GTXs.
I got goodyear's on mine (Zrated gatorbacks 225/55 ZR 16) - I think they
offered both kinds.
*** Driver Power seat was an option I believe (cause I have one in my 92 GT
Conv. which was not an option in 1989 GT's). Also the Rear window switches
for the convertibles were removed from the rear compartments.
1993
---Cobra stuff and 94 stuff---
*** Inner Headliner for the convertibles was new in 1993. A new stereo (Head
unit) with an option for CD was also available in 1993.
07 Oct 1993
John Schultz
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
I remember reading a couple months ago how seals and what not for the
front brakes of GTs are cross-referenced weird. I dug out my archives and
found that it was the 87 and up GTs that were affected. Since I have an
86 I thought I was safe. Went to the store, told them I had an 86 GT and
they gave me the SVO part (saying GT and SVO were listed as the same). I
get back to the garage, repack the bearings and the seal doesn't fit. I
look at the old seal and notice the new seal is not the same size. Back
to the parts shop...
We look in the book again and it's the right part. Parts guy can't find a
cross-reference for the CR11 Ford number on the old seal so he takes a
guess and grabs a seal from the back room. Bingo! Apparently, 87 and up
GTs are equivalent with the SVOs (something I was trying to tell them all
along) so my 86 GT *does not* get the SVO part as their book said. Just
thought I'd mention this in case anyone is going to be repacking their
wheel bearings soon...
08 Oct 1993
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
On Oct 8, Tom Stangler wrote:
> Of course, Ford requires a special tool to disconnect the fuel line rail.
> I've checked most of my regular suppliers and they don't have it.
>
> Is this a Ford specific tool only available from them?
No, it's not. Lisle (the guys who sell a line of automotive tools
shrink-wrapped on red pegboard cards) have both the fuel and the AC
line tools. They operate a bit like a pair of scissors, rather than
the clamshell style Ford tools. I believe that MAC and Snap-On also
have them, if you know your local truck guy. But I'd go after the
Lisle jobbie while I was looking for it, since it's like $5. Lots of
auto parts places carry the Lisle line. I think I got mine at a NAPA,
but I've seen them in Super Shops, and Scherba's. Lots of places carry
the Lisle stuff.
If you get _really_ desperate, you can make your own out of dead-soft
24ga aluminum. Fold a piece to double thickness, and from it form two
u-channels to be a snug slide fit on the male side. The folded edge
gives a nice smooth radius to the leading edge of the tool, to protect
the spring and o-rings as it slides into place, and a doubled piece of
thin metal is easier to form than a slab of thicker stuff.
Put one on each side of the male half, with the folded edge against
the spring. Then slide them up inside the connector to retract the
garter spring until they bottom. The male half and the tools will then
slide as a unit out of the female half. I've done this to the AC
lines, but not the fuel lines, and I can't really recommend it (since
the health of those o-rings and the garter spring is all that's
keeping fuel at 40psi from squirting out on your motor!), but if
you're ever really in a jam this can work well.
Don't forget to use the Schrader valve on the fuel rails to bleed off
the residual pressure before you pull the connectors!
Next time mine are apart, I intend to replace the garter-spring
connectors with 4AN and 6AN tube nuts and sleeves and real Aeroquip
plumbing, and have connectors that I trust. It'll require cutting the
garter spring stuff off and flaring the rails, but it'll be worth it.
I _hate_ the damned things, almost as much as I hate the hairpin clip
connectors at the rear of the car...
While I'm thinking about it. One other _really_ useful tool from the
Lisle line is their TFI module wrench. The TFI module (the Hall-effect
ignition sensor pickup preamp, that gray module mounted on the side of
the distributor) is mounted with 2 7/32" screws that are recessed way
the heck down inside the module. Unfortunately, the access holes are
too small to allow any commercial 7/23" deep socket to get in there.
So Lisle has an special extra-thin-wall socket with a little
screwdriver style grip on it, that makes working with these a snap.
If your car sees track use and extremely high underhood temperatures,
you might well experience a failure of the TFI module someday. I won't
say that you _probably_ will, but I've killed two of them over the
years. They use the distributor as a heatsink, and they are pretty
marginal thermally if you run seriously hard and hot. Unless they've
finally got smart and changed the design of the module since about
'91, it's not gonna come off without one of these... And with a dead
TFI module, you gots no sparks. Which means you have a four-wheeled,
fuel injected, high-tech paperweight.
If this ever happens the symptom is a no-start, and the tach will just
jump up to indicate about 50 rpm and then drop back to 0 erratically
once or twice per second while cranking. Just FYI. So you might
think about snagging one of these wrenches and a spare module for your
track spares box. It's one of my "must-have" spares, along with fuses
and a bypass hose...
08 Oct 1993
Jay Fletcher
mustangs@hpermsp.cup.hp.com
Well, I'm in a much better mood today. I installed a Maier Strut Tower
Brace on my '91 convertible last night and the cowl shake is MUCH
attenuated! It's still there, but the torsional rigidity of the front
end is definitely improved. Perhaps the x-brace from the '94 convertible
will reduce it below my threshold of perception!? :-O
I think the root of the cowl shake problem comes from the fact that you
have this huge inertia (the engine) which is connected to the K-member
and not much else. It doesn't want to roll (or pitch, or yaw, or anything)
along with the chassis. Add to this a relatively soft (torsionally)
connection to the chassis and you've got the front of the car doing it's
own thing relatively independent of the middle and rear. On the convertible
you really only have the two rocker boxes as a cross section at the front
of the doors! What is needed is (A) a roof or (2) a full cage that picks up
the window frame, cowl, front and rear floor, and something up high in the
back too, preferably.
Well, the strut tower brace has reduced the number of coupled pendulums in
my structural dynamics problem by one. The engine/K-member/strut towers/cowl
are now one structurally. The next step will be more difficult (and costly).
BTW, what Ford did with the 25lb "damper" on the '94 convertibles was
essentially adding another pendulum to the problem and trying to tune it so
it couples to the body and oscillates out of phase with it.
11 Oct 1993
bpita@ctp.com (Bob Pitas)
>I realize I must be the only person out there with a pre-EFI vehicle. :-)
>BUT, I was wondering if anyone knows of any good replacement headers
>for an '85 5.0HO. I can't seem to find them anywhere. What's the
>difference between '85 exhaust and '86 exhaust? Could they be modified?
The only difference (someone correct me if I'm wrong?) is that the collector
flange on the -'85 headers has a flat mount with the H-pipe while the
'86+ flange has a ball-&-socket arrangement. If you want new headers for
an '85 you'll need a new H-pipe too, unless someone makes a special set
of headers. I just went with the MAC 2 1/2" H-pipe and their headers
too... I don't know if anyone out there makes headers specifically for
'85s, but then again I really didn't look very hard since I knew I was
upgrading my exhaust at the same time...
11 Oct 1993
bstdenis@mailbox.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (Brian StDenis)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
My heater core inlet hose had cracked at the track two weekends ago.
I had just cut off the end that the crack was close to and used the
now shorter hose. This was working fine but list.wisdom suggested
replacing the short hose at my convenience.
Saturday, I decided to replace it. The end of the inlet hose near the
heater core was the one I had got off at the track (thank heavens).
It came off easily. (I had used a new "normal" type hose clamp on it when
I put it back on, not the stock one that sucks.) The other end of this
hose connects to a metal pipe that runs up to the thermostat (I think).
This pipe has coolant flowing at all times. Anyway, the clamp on this
end of the hose (from the factory) is one that loosens when you squeeze
it with pliers. I could get it to squeeze together, but I could not
get it to slide down the hose, away from the metal pipe. I tried and
tried. While trying the pliers would slip off occassionally. Later,
when the pliers slipped off, the clamp ended up rotating on the pipe
so that the top of the clamp was under the other heater hose (and its
pipe). Now I can't get my pliers on the clamp to squeeze it.
At this point, I figured I'd try to take off the heater core return hose.
I started with the side of the hose that connects to the heater core.
The stock clamp came off and down the hose fairly easily. I have been
warned to be careful not to hurt the heater core when getting these
hoses off. I grabbed the hose with pliers and twisted to try and break
the static grip the hose has on the heater core pipe. I couldn't. I could
rotate the hose almost 180 degrees but the hose would flex and not break
loose of the heater core. Then I grabbed the hose with my hand and pulled.
This is what I did to the the other hose off. It wouldn't budge.
I went back to the other end with the squeeze type clamp and couldn't get
it off either.
I was invited over to my friend's apartment for breakfast at this point. I
was a little dirty so I refused the invite. I went back to try to get the
heater core side off by pulling with just my hands. Somehow, I broke
something so the return pipe now moves a little with respect to the firewall
and the inlet pipe (which don't move at all). I could not tell right away
if this is bad or not. I kept pulling. This hose will NOT come off that
pipe. Now that I think about it, the hose has sort of melted to the pipe.
I think the hose that is over the pipe is of a smaller diameter than the rest
of the hose. I don't think there is any way to get this hose off without
cutting the hose lengthwise. Since I don't have a replacement for this
hose, I had to give up on this project. I put the inlet hose back on the
way it was after the track repair. I left the clamp off that holds the
outlet hose to the heater core because that hose is not going anywhere.
I got in my car, started it and immediately, coolant was being pumped
into my passenger footwell and and down the firewall from inside the heater
core.
I know I am a novice at this mechanic stuff, but why the *!@#$ would someone
design a hose to metal fitting that sucks like this? Why would they use
two different hose clamps, both of which suck? I cannot see that using
cheap hose clamps like this can save them more than $1.00 for each car.
Well, back to the story. Since I bought that hose repair kit when in
Hallett, I had a plastic hose-to-hose fitting and another clamp. I
took off the hose on the inlet part of the heater core. I cut the hose
that connects to the outlet of the heater core. (Man it was fun to cut
that !@#$% hose off!!!) Then, the spice of the hose to hose bypass of
the heater core was a snap.
I looked in the manual on replacing the heater core. For 92's (87 up,
probably) you have to take out the center console and dash. That alone
is more work that I want to do. I called Cici at SFP (Strikly Ford
Performance) and he said he'd do it for $150. My buddy had his
heater core replaced for $300 so I'm probably getting off easy.
Morals of the story:
1) heater cores are fragile - be big time careful
2) don't try to take the heater core hoses off and re-use them (they may
not come off in one piece)
3) the hose clamps on these hoses are not very adjustable and are very
hard to work with. Someone at Ford is doing us a big dis-service.
(I don't care if they are $.05 cheaper, it still sucks.)
Finally, a girl in the parking lot said, "Are you fixing a flat?" Just
kidding, she didn't say that. But, she did say that her BMW had
the same type of weak heater core.
11 Oct 1993
andrem@pyramid.com (Andre Molyneux)
On Oct 11, 12:04, Brian StDenis wrote:
> Subject: heater core hoses (more bad luck)
[stuff deleted]
> At this point, I figured I'd try to take off the heater core return hose.
> I started with the side of the hose that connects to the heater core.
> The stock clamp came off and down the hose fairly easily. I have been
> warned to be careful not to hurt the heater core when getting these
> hoses off. I grabbed the hose with pliers and twisted to try and break
> the static grip the hose has on the heater core pipe. I couldn't. I could
> rotate the hose almost 180 degrees but the hose would flex and not break
> loose of the heater core. Then I grabbed the hose with my hand and pulled.
> This is what I did to the the other hose off. It wouldn't budge.
> I went back to the other end with the squeeze type clamp and couldn't get
> it off either.
The hoses on the heater core stick *really* good. My experience has been
to cut them off and replace them - not a cheap proposition, as the correct
hoses (both for the EFI and carbed engines) only seem to be available at
the dealer.
> I was invited over to my friend's apartment for breakfast at this point. I
> was a little dirty so I refused the invite. I went back to try to get the
> heater core side off by pulling with just my hands. Somehow, I broke
> something so the return pipe now moves a little with respect to the firewall
> and the inlet pipe (which don't move at all). I could not tell right away
> if this is bad or not.
Those fittings aren't very strong. I'd guess you broke it where it
connected to the body of the heater core.
[more stuff deleted]
> I got in my car, started it and immediately, coolant was being pumped
> into my passenger footwell and and down the firewall from inside the heater
> core.
Yup, that's what happened. You are now officially in deep $&%@.
> I know I am a novice at this mechanic stuff, but why the *!@#$ would someone
> design a hose to metal fitting that sucks like this? Why would they use
> two different hose clamps, both of which suck? I cannot see that using
> cheap hose clamps like this can save them more than $1.00 for each car.
The factory clamps are probably made to save assembly time, rather than
make the clamps cheaper. They can probably be put in place in seconds
on the assembly line.
> Well, back to the story. Since I bought that hose repair kit when in
> Hallett, I had a plastic hose-to-hose fitting and another clamp. I
> took off the hose on the inlet part of the heater core. I cut the hose
> that connects to the outlet of the heater core. (Man it was fun to cut
> that !@#$% hose off!!!) Then, the spice of the hose to hose bypass of
> the heater core was a snap.
>
> I looked in the manual on replacing the heater core. For 92's (87 up,
> probably) you have to take out the center console and dash. That alone
> is more work that I want to do. I called Cici at SFP (Strikly Ford
> Performance) and he said he'd do it for $150. My buddy had his
> heater core replaced for $300 so I'm probably getting off easy.
The big issue with heater core replacement is whether or not you have
air conditioning. Replacing the core on a non-A/C car is apparently
pretty easy. Replacement on a car with A/C is non-trivial, and requires
that the A/C system be depressurized.
$300 for a car with A/C is quite reasonable by California standards. $150
would be a screaming deal for a car with A/C. I assume you have A/C
(seeing as how you're in Texas) and that the shop who quoted you $150 knows
it?
> Morals of the story:
> 1) heater cores are fragile - be big time careful
Mustang heater cores are definitely fragile. Unfortunately, there doesn't
appear to be an aftermarket replacement that's much better. A friend got
the core in his '85 replaced by a highly-recommended local shop at about
the same time I did, about three years ago. This last winter, he had to
have it done again. The owner of the shop used a core which he said he
thought was a little better than the Ford core, but that he hadn't found
a replacment that would hold up significantly better.
> 2) don't try to take the heater core hoses off and re-use them (they may
> not come off in one piece)
Cut them off and replace with new ones from the dealer. Hate to reccomend
it, but it's better than busting the core.
> 3) the hose clamps on these hoses are not very adjustable and are very
> hard to work with. Someone at Ford is doing us a big dis-service.
> (I don't care if they are $.05 cheaper, it still sucks.)
I believe every clamp in the cooling system is of the "do not re-use"
variety. At least, all the repair manuals I've looked at indicate this.
> Finally, a girl in the parking lot said, "Are you fixing a flat?" Just
> kidding, she didn't say that. But, she did say that her BMW had
> the same type of weak heater core.
Back when I was in college, a friend and I stopped to talk to someone
he knew who was replacing the engine in his truck. He had just put
the block in, and most of the accessory pieces were still sitting around
the garage and driveway. This guy's girlfriend walks up, points to the
big five-bladed metal fan, and asks "Is that the fan belt?"
04 Oct 1993
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
On Oct 4, Marty Udisches wrote:
> >While driving to work this morning I noticed something disconcerting :
> >at 2000 RPM the oil pressure drops significantly. It normally sits
> >around the "R" in NORMAL, and it dropped to "A" ! If I changed the
> >engine speed, either faster or slower than 2000 RPM the oil pressure
> >returned to "R" I was able to reproduce this sitting in the parking
> >lot at work too.
>
> At this point I don't worry about it too much, and use
> the gage as more of an analog "idiot light". As long
> as it's showing something (and I can't hear the rods :-)
> I assume oil pressure's fine.
>
> Future plans call for a real mechanical gage run to
> the passenger compartment, and, sooner, an ohsh*t light
> run by a known and tested 20psi switch...
And the fact of the matter is that the oil pressure does vary with engine RPM,
by design. It will vary (depending very strongly on oil temp, oil viscosity,
production tolerances in the pressure relief spring, and age/condition of the
engine) from 25-40psi at idle to 50-70psi at 5000rpm. It has always annoyed
the brains out of me that Ford gages resolutely refuse to show this normal
variation. Shoot, you'd figure that over a factor of 2 or more range the
needle ought to at least _budge_, no? You can tell that I'll never design
gages for Ford.
I would guesstimate that your particular problem is traceable to the
Instrument Voltage Regulator. Chances are very good that the never-to-be-
sufficiently-damned IVR decided to pitch a fit, and when it goes spastic all
the gages behave in even more meaningless ways than they ordinarily do. Sooner
or later, you'll see the opposite effect, where all 3 gages that use the IVR-
regulated supply (fuel, oil press, water temp) go offscale all at once.
They'll get tired of it after a while, and come back down eventually.
In any case, I doubt highly that any antics your gage might engage in mean
much, as long as the needle's off the peg on the L side. Ford has designed the
gage system so that the fuel gage gives the impression of wonderful mileage
(at least for the first half tank!), and all the other engine instruments go
to familiar, predictable positions and _stay put_. None of them show you the
normal +-30psi oil pressure swings, or the +- 50degF temperature swings, that
are a part of normal operating life. They really are analog idiot lights, as
Marty so aptly put it.
I put in real mechanical gages, and I'm glad I did. For the remaining stock
fuel gage, I replaced the stock IVR with a 7805 on a heatsink and have been
rewarded with an absolutely linear, repeatable fuel gage that shows me the car
burning exactly one-quarter tank every 55 miles, never sulks against the top
peg, and drops to the "E" when I have exactly 2 gallons left. Valhalla.
The gages _can_ mean something, but until you correct the designed in
deficiencies of the IVR, they won't. This is not a bug, apparently. The
stability of the needles, come hell or high water, is a Feature in the mind of
Joe and Mary Sixpack and the marketing guys who want to sell cars to them. We
enthusiasts who need more meaningful data have to live with it, and work
around it as best we can.
04 Oct 1993
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
On Oct 4, Brian St Denis wrote:
> I increased my timing a week ago last Friday from stock 10 degrees to
> almost 13 degrees.
> At this same time, I switched my camber from around 1 degree to the maximum
> negative of about 2 degrees.
> I noticed immediately a _decrease_ in gas mileage. I attributed it to the
> timing. I have left my car set up like this for the last week and my
> mileage was consistently down.
>
> On the way back yesterday, I put the camber back to normal but left the
> timing at 13. My gas mileage went back up. Any thoughts?
The camber change almost certainly has nothing to do with it. When you first
bump up the timing, you'll probably notice the extra top end grunt. So you'll
_use it_, and the additional time spent at WOT enjoying it will definitely
lower your mileage noticeably. After all, the extra grunt has to come from
somewhere, and the only place it comes from is burning fuel. After you get
used to it, you'll find your mileage will slowly return to more or less
normal.
One other mitigating factor. My mileage is always better, by about 4 MPG, for
the two weeks after a track event. This I attribute to the fact that I've
gotten my brain purged of the need for speed, so I drive pretty sedately right
after a track event. Then, after a few weeks, the mileage drops off again as I
start driving more aggressively on the street, and the frustration builds
until the next event...
It's as regular as clockwork. Used to drive me nuts until I figured out the
correlation.
05 Oct 1993
bstdenis@mailbox.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (Brian StDenis)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
> When you
> first bump up the timing, you'll probably notice the extra top end
> grunt. So you'll _use it_, and the additional time spent at WOT
> enjoying it will definitely lower your mileage noticeably. After all,
> the extra grunt has to come from somewhere, and the only place it
> comes from is burning fuel. After you get used to it, you'll find your
> mileage will slowly return to more or less normal.
I agree that the new power is tempting to use, especially when new.
But, I advanced my timing on Sept. 24th. Sure, I juiced it once
in a while over the next few days for two reasons. 1) it is fun
to have a little more power and 2) I was checking which octane gas was
the lowest I could go and not ping.
Between Sept. 24 and Oct. 1, I went through over a tank of gas. It
is 30 miles each way to work. On the 1st, I drove to Hallett on cruise
most of the time and I had no reason or desire to juice it. My gas mileage
that day was the same as it was over the previous week at about 23 mpg
highway.
Before coming back on the 3rd, I set my camber back and got my normal
25+ mpg.
> One other mitigating factor. My mileage is always better, by about 4
> MPG, for the two weeks after a track event. This I attribute to the
> fact that I've gotten my brain purged of the need for speed, so I
> drive pretty sedately right after a track event. Then, after a few
> weeks, the mileage drops off again as I start driving more
> aggressively on the street, and the frustration builds until the next
> event...
Oh, you are absolutely right about not having a desire to go fast after
an event. This was _especially_ true after Hallett. The more I look
back at that event, the more I liked it. There are thrills involved
in any track event but the down hill braking into "stop sign" takes
the cake. I am thrilled out. I don't think I have gone over 2k rpm
since the event ;-)
Another factor that plays on my mind is that I decrease my tire pressure
from 44 psi front and 36 psi rear to 30 all around after an event. I also
put my camber back to normal. I am conscious of these changes whenever the
hormones build up and start making me want to get on it. I know what a
difference 2 psi of pressure can make on the track and I feel like my
car is back to the grocery-getter configuration.
Anyway, I was comparing a weeks worth of driving, including a tank full
of driving on cruise, to the trip back on cruise. If we don't come up
with anything else, I'll put my camber back to maximum negative for
a tank full and report.
Track info:
While trying to find a way to get my time down below 1:38, I tried decreasing
just my rear pressure by 2 psi and setting just the left front camber to
about -1 instead of -2. That little of a change caused at least a second
per lap increase in time.
05 Oct 1993
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
Well, well. Remember back a few months ago, I posted a quickie review of the
Watson book, "How to Tune and Modify Ford Fuel Injection"? I said that I
thought that it was an invaluable adjunct to the shop manuals, and that I'd
recommend it highly to anyone who is wavering about forking over the $80 to
Helm for the official shop manuals.
Forget that. I just got in a copy of a book that's about an order of magnitude
_better_, more current, and is only $10 more expensive (at $29.95).
It is entitled "How to Understand, Service, and Modify Ford Fuel Injection and
Electronic Engine Control", by Charles O. Probst. The publisher is Robert
Bentley, Cambridge, MA, ISBN 0-8376-0301-3. In its roughly 450 pages, it
covers the whole gamut of modern EFI applications for Ford and Lincoln-Mercury
products (and the Ford-labeled Mazda products, for us Probe and Capri owners).
It includes separate chapters on Emissions Controls and Alternate Fuels,
Sensors, Actuators, Engine Control Strategies, Tuning for Performance and
Economy, Service and Troubleshooting (including complete lists of trouble
codes and self-test procedures), and astoundingly, engine control system
schematics for all the fuel injected Fords from 1988 to current production,
including the Mustang Cobra.
It is _amazingly_ complete. It delves into the theory behind the various
engine control strategies, and gets into the details of how each strategy is
implemented, right down to documenting which sensors are active, and which are
ignored, for each of the operating regimes of the EEC-IV-controlled engine
(just for the record, the strategies are Warm Cruise, Engine Crank, Cold
Start/Warm Up, Cold Driveaway, Warm Driveaway, Part-throttle Acceleration,
Full-throttle Acceleration, Deceleration, and Warm Idle). Each strategy is
managed differently by the EEC box, and finally there is a concise reference
available to the enthusiast to document them. This is also a good reference to
find out just what the EEC box is doing with your ignition advance, EGR,
bypass air, and all the other fiddly bits, in each regime.
It documents the difference between the old Ford EEC nomenclature and the new
SAE J1930 and OBD-II standard names, for those of us fuddy-duddies who learned
our EEC-IV back before standardization. It also contains a good address list
for vendors of emissions-legal go-fast bits, and has a complete list (as of
the publication date) of all the CARB EO numbers that _make_ them legal. It
very nicely fills the information gap that exists between the shop manuals and
the advertorials we are bombarded with by the magazines. And it avoids the
trap of ignoring the aftermarket tuners. The cover photos is of a SAAC
Mustang, for example.
The small downside is that those of us who have pre-'88 EEC-III or EEC-IV
speed density cars will not find our applications in here. But we speed-
density Mustang owners are becoming fewer in number as we upgrade to Mass Air,
and much of the theory is still applicable even if we use a slightly different
sensor set.
I'm going to say something I _never_ say, because I'm not given to
superlatives like this very damned often, and folks who've read this list for
more than 3 or 4 years know this to be true.
* Any owner of a MAF injected Mustang who doesn't *
* buy this book has _blue mud_ for brains. *
Knowledge is power, and there is a huge amount of knowledge in here, for less
than the cost of a set of plug wires, and less than 1/3 the cost of the
factory Emissions and Powertrain Control manual (the H manual). It still
doesn't replace the factory manual outright, but it makes a Haynes or other
hack manual look _extremely_ unsatisfactory.
If most of the enthusiasts here on the list snag a copy of this, the volume of
mail on the list will drop by 60%. It's _that_ good. On a scale of 1 to 10,
it's a solid 10 for the late-model Mustanger. Apparently Ford agrees with me,
since the book has been assigned an Ford Motorsport/SVO part number, and is
now available through Motorsport dealers as part number M-1832-Z1. Hopefully,
it'll be $29.95 from them as well.
It's available directly from Robert Bentley Publishers, 1000 Massachusetts
Avenue, Cambridge, Ma 02138, (800)423-4595. Their stock number is GFF9. It is
also available from Classic Motorbooks, Osceola, WI, but I don't have their
number and address handy. Perhaps Ken Corpus can get them for us, also. Does
your list show this yet, Ken? Could you work a deal for the list members?
I'm dead serious, folks. Get this book, read it, keep it on your shelves. If
necessary, go hungry for two or three days, or skip your next set of plug
wires. Most people who lurk on this list never do any of the things we
discuss. You wanna know how your EEC-IV works? Here's where to look.
05 Oct 1993
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
One other note:
I just got off the phone with Bentley, and there is a followup manual,
which covers all applications 1980-1987. It's not available yet, but
it will be out early next year- it's still in the editing phase. Same
author, same level of detail. So those of us with speed density cars,
or some of the earlier CFI cars that have caused such confusion from
time to time, will be covered in the same detail. Good news for us
old-tech folks. As soon as that book rolls off the presses, I'll have
a copy in my hot little hands, and I'll let the list know.
By then I may have upgraded to mass-air, but I'm gonna buy it anyway.
Knowledge is power, and that sucker is less than the cost of 5
hamburgers. If they're _really good_ hamburgers, anyway...
05 Oct 1993
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
On Oct 4, Brian StDenis wrote:
> > I promise that if they gave warranty coverage for stripped out threads the
> > price of your car *would* go up.
Yup. You wouldn't like this. It's a fact of nature that stuff breaks,
and the manufacturer shouldn't have to cover items that can be broken
by the owner tweaking them during service. Sometimes they _will_, but
it's primarily out of the goodnes of their hearts, which means that
_somebody's_ got to pay for it, and it ain't the manufacturer. Those
of us who turn our own wrenches save a lot of money, but we also
absorb all of responsibility for doing it right.
> I don't think the housing should crack from a one handed light effort
> on a small 3/8" drive ratchet. I wasn't even doing final tightening.
To be honest with you, I doubt that you broke it then. The most likely
time to break it is when you're tightening it, but that's hardly the
only time. I have a buddy who cracked a similar casting with a pipe
plug. He was trying to _loosen_ it, but it was galled and didn't want
to break loose. So he went the other way, and tightened it just a
teensy bit, just to "break it loose". Ping. It broke, all right, and
left him with the casing of a Hewland Mk8 gearbox from a vintage car
with a nice tidy crack in it. Now, there was a man who cried real
tears.
Another great way to crack an aluminum casting is to overtighten the
plug just a bit, and then temperature cycle the casting. There may not
be a visible crack in it when the tightening is done. You may well not
even feel it yield, but a few thermal cycles will complete an
incipient crack and open it right up. Leakage may not start
immediately, but the next time the plug is removed, the presence of
the crack will keep it from sealing again. This may well be what you
experiaenced.
It's tough luck, my friend. Next time out, use the teflon liquid pipe
thread sealant in a tube, and don't overtighten it. I use Loctite PST,
primarily because I bought a huge tube years ago and haven't used it
up yet... And chalk that one up to experience.
> > Glad to hear you made it to the event and had so much fun! What a pain!
>
> Yeah, a pain. I am not gun shy about working on my car though. I really
> think this is a one in a million problem and obviously their fault.
If you really believe this (and I don't), then don't weld the case. If
you do, you'll wipe out any trace of any metallurgical anomaly that
might account for the sudden failure. I suspect that if you section it
and look as the material, you'll find that it's just fine, and failed
from overstress at some point. Perhaps the time before last that you
filled it. If you're going to engage in any legal action over this
(which I think would be a _huge_ and expensive mistake on your part),
you'll need to prove to somebody that there was a failure in the
material. Weld it, and you can't do that.
I'd bet a case of anybody's favorite damaging beverage that it wasn't
a material failure. Hey, don't feel bad. We all either a) have done
it, or b) will do it soon. If you keep playing with the car on the
track, you'll break a lot of parts. The faster you go, the more you'll
break.
At some point, you'll learn that there's no such thing as a material
failure, just as Carroll Smith says in his books. There are only user
failures, from either mishandling the part or the tools, or from
failing to replace the part before its useful life was exceeded. A
lot of stuff can be treated as immortal for the purposes of a
grocerygetter, but not for a track car- which yours now is. You've put
it through the most intensive summer's worth of track use I can
remember for an unprepped street car. Any material or workmanship
problem of the warrantyable type would have surfaced already, some
time back. We call that "infant mortality". What you're running into
now is the realization that every part of the car is gonna wear out or
give up eventually, and it's your hand on the wrench, or the gear
lever, or your foot on the throttle that determines _exactly_ when.
A bunch of us live with that responsibility every day, and I think
that it's time for you to come to that realization too.
The story of aluminum alloy bits in automotive use is the story of
cracked castings, stripped threads, wholesale warpage, and sudden
strange corrosion problems. Then the wrenches involved figured it out,
but the rest of us have to learn by Braille. Cheer up- it could have
been a set of aluminum heads...
13 Oct 1993
andrem@pyramid.com (Andre Molyneux)
mustangs%hpda.cup.hp.com@cup.hp.com
Haven't seen any other responses yet, so I'll give it a shot:
On Oct 13, 12:27, Rich_West@Warren.MentorG.com wrote:
> Subject: Exhaust System Info (needed)
> Currently, on my '84 302 which was converted from its original
> 4cylinder, has true duals on it. Obviously, it is not original, and
> I have some questions that I have yet to answer. First off, for each pipe,
> are there supposed to be TWO catalytic converters? If so, what kind
> should they be? I only have ONE on each pipe (which I had installed)..
> where would the other ones go if they are supposed to be there? Also, is
> there a special pipe for the exhaust to connect up the air pump? How does
> the air pump get connected anyhow? Rubber hose?! Metal one? Is it really
> needed to be connected to reduce the emissions? Are the additional converters
> enough?
>
> I have had the car up and running for two years now, and have
> consistently failed emissions (330 Hydrocarbons when the law states no higher
> that 220). As I have played with all of the emissions controls that I have
> (not many.. remember this is a conversion, and it is a year before the computer
> was really used a lot to control emissions), mainly the carb, idle, plug gap,
> etc with little or no good effect. Also, I don't have standard (crap) headers.
> I have aftermarket headers (Hooker).
I take it that you're in a state that doesn't require "original" emissions
equipment or emissions equipment that has been certified to work in your
application. Here in California, changing just about anything from the
cats forward has to have a C.A.R.B. certification number.
Ford currently uses two catalytic converters per side, but I don't think
that it's absoluetly necessary. They may have gone with these to improve
ground clearance or improve exhaust flow - you can probably get by with
one converter per side.
The tricky part is getting all the system parts to work right *together*.
I'm sure Ford (and all the aftermarket suppliers of emissions-legal parts)
does a lot of testing to come up with the right combination of fuel
mixture/engine specs (compression, cam, exhaust manifolds), and the correct
spots and amounts of air to pump into the exhaust. You don't have that
luxury.
What can you do? Well, pumping some additional air into the exhausts
before or at the catalysts (like on the factory cars) will probably help.
The catalytic converters need to have enough oxygen in the exhaust to
take try to care of the unburned hydrocarbons. On the factory cars, steel
tubing is used to connect the air pump to the catalysts. Remember, cats
get *really* hot so don't even think of running some kind of rubber
tubing down there.
Did you get the stock engine from an '84, with the stock carb? If so,
you've probably got a reasonable chance of getting the car to meet
emissions, even with the aftermarket headers. If the engine is hopped
up or doesn't have the normal factory emissions equipment on it, you may
be wasting your time.
Who did you get your catalysts from? If they're aftermarket, try calling
their manufacturer to see if they have any tips for your application. My
stock '85 Capri has always been way below the California specs, even when
it wasn't running very well, so you should have some leeway to play with.
Aside from the dual exhausts, try to make sure everything is set up the way
the factory would have for your year of engine. It'll make your job much
easier.
13 Oct 1993
koch@green.rtsg.mot.com (Cliff Koch)
On Oct 13, 12:27pm, Rich_West@warren.mentorg.com wrote:
> Subject: Exhaust System Info (needed)
> Currently, on my '84 302 which was converted from its original
> 4cylinder, has true duals on it. Obviously, it is not original, and
> I have some questions that I have yet to answer. First off, for each pipe,
> are there supposed to be TWO catalytic converters? If so, what kind
> should they be? I only have ONE on each pipe (which I had installed)..
> where would the other ones go if they are supposed to be there? Also, is
> there a special pipe for the exhaust to connect up the air pump? How does
> the air pump get connected anyhow? Rubber hose?! Metal one? Is it really
> needed to be connected to reduce the emissions? Are the additional
converters
> enough?
I belive before '86, the 302 exhaust was not a true dual system, it had a
single catalytic converter that two pipes went in and 2 pipes came out. '86
and up have a true dual setup with 4 catalytic converters. The converter unit
is an H pipe integral unit (everything is welded together) with two catalytic
converters shortly after the header flange on each side, and two converters
right after the crossover pipe, just before the pipes going back to the
mufflers on each side. The air injection went to two places. It was injected
directly into the head during warmup, and then injected into the crossover
pipe in the cat unit when the engine was warmed up. The crossover pipe has a
metal tube (~7/8") that goes up next to the passenger side of the engine with
a backflow valve in it, which is connected to a rubber hose which goes to a
diverter valve which determines where the air is injected (whew). I'm not
sure of the exact reasoning behind this, but I'll guess that air is injected
before the first cats on warmup to get them up to operating temperature
faster, and then before the second set after warmup to reduce backpressure at
the head exhaust port.
That said, you obviously don't have a factory setup. I know the MAC high
perf. cat unit has 2 converters total. The forward ones are not there. You
may have something like this on your car. You do not need 4 converters.
>
> I have had the car up and running for two years now, and have
> consistently failed emissions (330 Hydrocarbons when the law states no
higher
> that 220). As I have played with all of the emissions controls that I have
> (not many.. remember this is a conversion, and it is a year before the
computer
> was really used a lot to control emissions), mainly the carb, idle, plug
gap,
> etc with little or no good effect. Also, I don't have standard (crap)
headers.
The air pump is needed to reduce emmisions. A lot of what the catalytic
converters do requires oxygen, like converting CO to CO2, which there is very
little of left after combustion.
You don't mention what other mods are done (like cam), but for a relatively
stock motor to pass those emmisoins figures, I'd say make sure you are not
running rich, and have an operational EGR and AIR system. Those along with
the cats should get you under 220.
13 Oct 1993
David Gonzales (General)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
>Currently, on my '84 302 which was converted from its original
4cylinder, has true duals on it...for each pipe, are there supposed to
be TWO catalytic converters? If so, what kind should they be? Also, is
there a special pipe for the exhaust to connect up the air pump?...have
consistently failed emissions...
Rich,
Your best solution would be to go to a wrecking yard and get a complete
emmissions package, maybe buy a dead '84 engine to get them all,
including the charcoal cannister, exhaust, etc. If you have the stock
cam, or one similiar, there should be no problem passing emmissions,
with everything correctly operating.
You'll notice an '84 5.0 has one convertor, and single exhaust. The '86
and newer has true dual exhaust with total of four convertors, but
there are legal replacements (Thrush?) that only contain two. I don't
see any problem with emmisons levels if the convertors are hooked up
similiarly to a stock setup. If you do some research, factory
manuals,Chilton Total Care, or examine actual cars, you'll figure it
out. (That Chilton manual is often available from the local library,
this book also has a nice tutorial on emissions controls, you'll find
the pollution problem is not so simple. However I wouldn't rely on any
Chilton's manual as the last word on anything, the spec charts are very
very misleading.)
However, some states have a visual inspection and will fail a
non-standard system. And why not? the factory setup is designed by
accredited engineers and certified with the EPA. If you make up your
own system, it very well could pass the limited tests given locally,
but that what about _all_ conditions? Hence the visual test for
"approved" controls. However, most places are pretty lenient about it,
...it is usually allowable to substitute parts with others that meet
certain guidlines, e.g. high flow convertors, computer chips, headers,
etc. The federal government says you can only replace if parts are
damaged...but most interprete that law pretty liberally, so there's
usually no problem.
If there is, use the factory exhaust or convert to a newer engine with
true duals, using the stock controls for that year.
>consistently failed emissions (330 Hydrocarbons when the law states no
higher that 220)... I have played with..mainly the carb, idle, plug
gap, etc with little or no good effect. Also, I don't have standard
(crap) headers. I have aftermarket headers (Hooker).
A friend of mine had a hot-rodded '84 4BBL Mustang. He couldn't get it
to pass CA emmission tests, so he sold to me real cheap. After tuning
up the carb (not the engine), mileage increased 20%--even though it
didn't feel any different than before. However, it smelled a lot
better, no more gas fumes from the tailpipes. It had a radical cam, so
it most likely wouldn't have passed the test, but there was a
tremendous difference. Here's what I learned:
1. If you have not rejetted the carb after modifiying the exhaust
system (headers), this needs to be done. The car will _not_ run
efficiently without doing this.
I can send on request some info about this.
2. If you can't pass an HC test at idle, your engine is not tuned up
correctly. You don't even need cats to reduce HC at idle, they will
have negligible effect. Is the mixture too rich or too lean at
idle--that is the question. Both will cause excess HC.
If it won't pass the HC test at a higher rpm (2500 rpm is common) only
then does it becomes more complicated.
Use stock plug gap for '84 H.O engines.
13 Oct 1993
koch@green.rtsg.mot.com (Cliff Koch)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
Just thought I'd post a followup to a thread awhile back.
Once upon a time, I was looking to buy new tires for my Mustang. I had
factory Gatorback P225/60VR15's and went to Dunlop D40M2 P245/45VR16's on
ROH-Z 16x8 rims.
At the time I relied on the fellow at Tire Rack to recommend a tire for the
16" rims that would get me to the same tire diameter as the old tires. He
recommended the 45 series, and I later calculated it should have probably been
50 series. It had also been suggested on this list that the Tire Rack guy may
have been working off of real tire circumferences to make his recommendation.
Nope. The new full tread Dunlops are smaller than the Gatorbacks, which were
slicks for all practical purposes. Not a major deal. Other than that, the
Tire rack speed of delivery was incredible. I ordered the tires on a Monday
night, two arrived on Wednesday and two on Thursday.
I like the looks of the ROH rims a *lot* over the turbine rims I had before.
They even look cleanable (anyone who has the turbines knows what I mean).
I've had no rubbing problems, but haven't tried anything overly nasty with
them yet (unless you count Chicago roads :-). The main area of concern looks
like it would be the front fender wells if I lower the front any (which I plan
on 1"). I'm not sure how much travel up the front tires go through, but the
front tires aren't going to clear the wells.
The jury is still out on the Dunlops. So far, my general feeling is
straight line traction and static lateral traction is down. I don't know how
fair this is, seeing as the gatorbacks were slicks. I haven't really beat on
the car much so far. I need to really get out and test the handling better.
The dynamic handling seems noticably improved, probably because of the lower
sidewall height. When initiating a turn or changing the direction of a turn I
don't notice as much of a 'weight shift' before the car settles into the turn.
No wet traction tests so far, though these can't be worse than gatorbacks.
Road noise is definately louder. When I first put the tires on, I had been
driving with no rear seat or carpeting for a few weeks, so the tire noise was
very easy to hear. With the interior reinstalled, it doesn't seem too bad.
Ride harshness is probably a bit worse, but not terribly so. I really can't
tell much difference. I don't mind the ride, but some of my passengers may.
15 Oct 1993
bkelley@pms706.pms.ford.com (Brian Kelley)
>>Because that motor would not pass emmissions standards
>
>How is it that GM can get a 350ci engine to pass but Ford can't get a 351ci
>engine to pass?
Because the LT1 is a *new* engine that was designed to meet emissions
and perform. The 351 is older than I am! Cars today must meet more than
simple tailpipe emissions - it is far worse than that. They put the car
in a room and measure emissions for *everything*. Gases coming off of
rubber hoses, sealing compounds, any system leaks, ozone from the
distributor, lead and tin from solder joints and that "new car smell"
counts as well. Putting the 351 in the Mustang so close to its demise
probably would be a waste of money and resources. I do feel that the
GT-40 package should have been standard on the new Mustang GT, considering
the price. The '93 Cobra is really a good buy right now. You get all
of the goodies. Add a 3.55 and a better exhaust and that car will really
wake up. Get one while you can.
The 5.0L is *DEAD* in '96. It will not be able to meet emissions.
The 351, 289, 302 don't have cylinder bores that seal well enough. The
head bolt configuration distorts the cylinder walls enough to cause
excessive blow-by. PCV does wonders, but it can't do it all. It is
crucial that the cylinder bores are straight and the ring sealing is
excellent. The new 4.6L uses a completely different head bolt
configuration. It is a welcome change for a weakness that has hounded
the small block Ford from the very beginning. The new head bolts
extend all the way to the bottom of the cylinder bores.
The DOHC 4.6 is just the beginning of a new series of really neat engines
from Ford. I can't say more, but there are other engines coming that
interest me as much, if not more, than the 4.6.
>Stink, for that matter what about the truck engine in the
>Viper - who sniff tests that?
It gets tested. I don't know if they get any sort of break for the small
numbers. I don't know how they, or the LT1 for that matter, will fare
in '96.
>One last rant:
>
>To the general public, I don't think being "faster" is paramount. Both the
>cheby and the stang are fast. I think other considerations, such as
>quality and as John says, brand loyalty might play a bigger role.
Well, when you test drive a '94 stang you'll notice that it is more "docile"
and less responsive than a '93 'stang. Weight hurts. All of the Mustang
rags have *really* sugar coated their articles on the new 'stang, but
I didn't really expect anything else. The writeup in Autoweek was a
fairly decent analysis.
14 Oct 1993
cernada@ait.com (Joseph P. Cernada)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
> >Currently, on my '84 302 which was converted from its original
> 4cylinder, has true duals on it...for each pipe, are there supposed to
> be TWO catalytic converters? If so, what kind should they be? Also, is
> there a special pipe for the exhaust to connect up the air pump?...have
> consistently failed emissions...
Here's some emissions info I got from the April 1992 issue of HOTROD
magazine:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The two things that are ususally tested are Hydrocarbons (HC) and
Carbon monoxide (CO). Hydrocarbons are unburned fuel and are a sign
of incomplete combustion. Carbon monoxide is a measure of air/fuel
ratio. Sometimes Carbon dioxide (CO2) is also tested. This is a
measure of complete combustion.
High HC levels can be caused by:
a dead cylinder due to ignition problem (unburned fuel in exhaust)
dirty oil
carbon buildup
dirty air filter
longer cam duration (more overlap and more ignition timing needed)
idle mixture too rich or lean (misfires)
spark plug too hot (pre-ignition)
faulty PCV valve
High CO levels can be caused by:
idle mixture settings
air/fuel ratio too rich
idle mixture too rich
spark plug too cold (not burning mixture completely)
Tricks:
Higher idle speed will lower CO and HC
(can usually get away with 300 rpm over stock)
Retarding timing will lower CO and HC (can usually
change ~3 degrees from stock)
Methanol or oxygenated fuels to lower CO
High octane fuels and octane boosters
15 Oct 1993
OADDAB@STDVAX.GSFC.NASA.GOV (DIRK BROER)
mustang@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
>>>Because that motor would not pass emmissions standards
>>
>>How is it that GM can get a 350ci engine to pass but Ford can't get a 351ci
>>engine to pass?
>
>Because the LT1 is a *new* engine that was designed to meet emissions
>and perform. The 351 is older than I am! Cars today must meet more than
>simple tailpipe emissions - it is far worse than that. They put the car
>in a room and measure emissions for *everything*. Gases coming off of
>rubber hoses, sealing compounds, any system leaks, ozone from the
>distributor, lead and tin from solder joints and that "new car smell"
>counts as well. Putting the 351 in the Mustang so close to its demise
>probably would be a waste of money and resources. I do feel that the
>GT-40 package should have been standard on the new Mustang GT, considering
>the price. The '93 Cobra is really a good buy right now. You get all
>of the goodies. Add a 3.55 and a better exhaust and that car will really
>wake up. Get one while you can.
Well actually the cheby small block dates back to the '50s just like the
Ford. The cheby is redisign with some significant improvements - but
nothing that couldn't be done to the 302 or 351. How 'bout aluminum
heads - cheby has had them for years. How 'bout reverse flow cooling-
crank trigger ignition? Seems that to save a few bucks they skirting
the issure. Someone once said that the reason most cars don't have
plugs in the transmission pan is that it saved a buck per car. Sell a
million cars and make and extra million in cash... You must remember
that the price of a car has nothing to do with how much it cost to build.
Basically it has everything to do with what it can be sold for...
>The 5.0L is *DEAD* in '96. It will not be able to meet emissions.
>The 351, 289, 302 don't have cylinder bores that seal well enough. The
>head bolt configuration distorts the cylinder walls enough to cause
>excessive blow-by. PCV does wonders, but it can't do it all. It is
>>crucial that the cylinder bores are straight and the ring sealing is
>excellent. The new 4.6L uses a completely different head bolt
configuration. It is a welcome change for a weakness that has hounded
>the small block Ford from the very beginning. The new head bolts
>extend all the way to the bottom of the cylinder bores.
The small block cheby is the worst when it comes to distorting the
cylinder walls when you torque down the heads. Thats why the professional
machine shops do the final honing of an engine with torque plates. These
distort the walls - and then they are made round - while under tension.
The result is a perfectly round wall when the engine is all bolted
together. I guess that'll never go for mass production. I bet if
you blue printed the 302 you could get another 30hp out of it.
Talking with someone who worked for GM during a summer job - he said
GM only checked every 50th cylinder head for miss-alignment of the
bolt holes - If there was a problem 49 of them may have gotten through...
Ford just has to give us the raw materials:
If they gave me a 5.0 with 4 bolt mains (like the old Boss engine) and
forged crank and forged rods - A block that allowed at least .060 boring
I could buy the rest from the aftermarket.
Give me a chassis that has a modern suspension - and can be stiffened
as needed by inexpensive aftermarket parts ( I'd rather buy the
Global West subframes than the Ford convertable ones ).
Plain interior - AC/power windows/power locks - manually adjustable seats.
Give all the electronic gadgets to the GM boys.
Make the car for about 13 grand - leave the cheap decals and spoilers off.
>The DOHC 4.6 is just the beginning of a new series of really neat engines
>from Ford. I can't say more, but there are other engines coming that
>interest me as much, if not more, than the 4.6.
>
>>Stink, for that matter what about the truck engine in the
>>Viper - who sniff tests that?
>
>It gets tested. I don't know if they get any sort of break for the small
>numbers. I don't know how they, or the LT1 for that matter, will fare
>in '96.
Different weight classes have different requirements. Above 8500lb GVW
it is classified as a truck. I think the V10 is only available in the
3/4 ton and 1 ton (this would mean at least 8500lbs GVW)
I'm not sure what the rules are for '96 but I know the biggest emission
problem is the warm-up time. Cats don't start working until they hit
a certain temperature. Turbos are out because they insulate the cats
(unless they use electrically heated cats) I think I heard that 30%
of all emissions happen during the first 2 minutes of a 30 minute
drive...
Maybe factory blue printed engines? Porsche can do it (with their
flat sixes). Would you pay $2000 extra for a car with a "perfect"
engine? I might.
15 Oct 1993
Dan Malek
>>Because the LT1 is a *new* engine that was designed to meet emissions
>>and perform. The 351 is older than I am......
>Well actually the cheby small block dates back to the '50s just like the
>Ford.....
>>The 5.0L is *DEAD* in '96. It will not be able to meet emissions.
>>The 351, 289, 302 don't have cylinder bores that seal well enough....
Having seen all types of engines come through the machine shop, I have
to point out that the small block Ford is one of the best blocks to
come from the factory. I know, the 4.6L is much better, but it should
be.
The quality of the materials from Ford is second to none. I will
criticize their factory machining, it does leave something to be
desired. It is not the dimensional machining, that is very good, it
is the finish work. Everything is aligned well, you just can't make
the gaskets stay in place. A balanced/blueprinted Ford engine, to
factory specs, is a very nice piece of machinery. I just wish they
could tighten up those tolerances on the factory floor.
>The small block cheby is the worst when it comes to distorting the
>cylinder walls when you torque down the heads. Thats why the professional
>machine shops do the final honing of an engine with torque plates...
We use torque plates on any performance engine, they all exhibit this
type of behavior, although some are much worse than others. The first
thing the Chevy guys do is put studs in every block hole. Run a bolt
in and out of a Chevy block more than three or four times and the
threads in the block are wasted. We have some Ford racing small blocks
that have been rebuilt about 20 times (and each rebuild gets torqued
heads at least three times) and we are still using the bolts in the
same holes. The Chevies (especially big blocks) have a real problem
holding head gaskets, even with a properly finished deck and head.
No problem on the Ford though. Too bad the factory can't get it right.
>Talking with someone who worked for GM during a summer job - he said
>GM only checked every 50th cylinder head for miss-alignment of the
>bolt holes - If there was a problem 49 of them may have gotten through...
Is Ford any better? This is probably just typical mass production
procedure.
>Ford just has to give us the raw materials:
>If they gave me a 5.0 with 4 bolt mains (like the old Boss engine) and
>forged crank and forged rods - A block that allowed at least .060 boring
>I could buy the rest from the aftermarket.
>Give me a chassis that has a modern suspension - and can be stiffened
>as needed by inexpensive aftermarket parts ( I'd rather buy the
>Global West subframes than the Ford convertable ones ).
>Plain interior - AC/power windows/power locks - manually adjustable seats.
>Give all the electronic gadgets to the GM boys.
>Make the car for about 13 grand - leave the cheap decals and spoilers off.
You can get all of this today (well, except some of the suspensions stuff).
I kinda' like some of the electronic gadgets :-).
>>The DOHC 4.6 is just the beginning of a new series of really neat engines
>>from Ford. I can't say more, but there are other engines coming that
>>interest me as much, if not more, than the 4.6.
>>
I am looking forward to this. Unfortunately, we can't use it in some
racing classes because the other manufacturer's don't have it available yet.
Of course, it will be the turn of the century before we could use it anyway.
All stock car type sanctioning bodies are afraid of technology. If it
isn't cast iron, pushrods, and carburetors, they can't control it. After
eight years of EFI happiness, I am now finding myself tuning carbs again
just so I can be part of a stock car racing team. What a bummer.
>Maybe factory blue printed engines? Porsche can do it (with their
>flat sixes). Would you pay $2000 extra for a car with a "perfect"
>engine? I might.
I don't know if I could trust them, since they would have to mass
produce it somehow. Just a little more quality control would make a
big difference in the factory engine.
I can balance/blueprint a new factory short block for less than that,
and get some performance additions in the head as well. The first
thing you do with the factory engine is toss the pistons. They are
so far out of whack you can't even balance it. I used factory pistons
in my last SVO engine build, and never again. I had to buy seven to
get four that were close enough to machine down to the same weight.
Of course, you have to consider how the engine is being used. I saw
someone here claim a 30HP increase from a balanced/blueprinted engine.
I don't think so. Maybe if aftermarket pistons, rings, valves and
head work are included, but that is not a "stock balanced/blueprinted"
engine. Balancing and blueprinting are important to ensure the
reliability and that the parts are performing up to their potential,
but stock engines don't vary by 30 HP (I hope :-).
15 Oct 1993
daveb@ingres.com (David Brower)
mustang@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
It was written:
>Talking with someone who worked for GM during a summer job - he said
>GM only checked every 50th cylinder head for miss-alignment of the
>bolt holes - If there was a problem 49 of them may have gotten through...
Is Ford any better? This is probably just typical mass production
procedure.
Concluding there are 49 bad blocks is an incorrect and dangerous
leap. This is *correct* Q/C procedure using statistical methods, and
quite typical of mass production.
The goal of measuring occasional blocks is to determine if there is a
problem with the process producing the blocks. You don't (and
shouldn't need to) measure individual blocks to see if they are within
acceptible values.
Let's say the acceptable production tolerence is 1 flapdoodle. You
assert that your machinery is sufficiently stable that over some sized
run, like a hundred, the measurement will not vary more than 0.1
flapdoodle. You then sample each 50th block and see where it is
regarding the dimension. You then know the last 50 blocks are +/- 0.1
flapdoodle of that dimension. You then track and adjust the process
to keep the value you are sampling in an acceptible range. The goal
is to correct the nominal value before it gets anywhere near the
outside of the acceptible range.
Now, if your process is not stable to 0.1 flapdoodle, you are in deep
trouble. You will need to deal with tracking 49 bad blocks. And it
doesn't apply when you want everything *just* right, which is why you
pay for blueprinting.
(I wouldn't put it past GM to have sloppy processes and let warrantee
by dealers handle the 49 bad ones. But that's different than saying
sampling is incorrect.)
This is straying from Mustang territory; let's confine this to mail
from now on.
18 Oct 1993
bpita@ctp.com (Bob Pitas)
mustangs%hpda.cup.hp.com@cup.hp.com
Boy did I have a producting weekend! My car is running like a top now,
and I didn't realize how nice it is.
On saturday I put on my 'winter' carb. It's getting too cold up here to
go without a choke. I had blown my power-valve a week or two ago, too,
so it needed to be replaced, and while I was at it, I noticed that the
gasket between the main body of the carb and the metering block on the
primary side had the two idle-bleed air-holes closed off. I'd used a
gasket that wasn't exactly the right one, and punched some holes through
the gasket where they should be, but I guess the pressure on the gasket
deformed the holes and basically squeezed them shut. That got rid of
the horrible starting problem that plagues my summer carb. Now it starts
when you just click it over, like it used to. I also finally got around
to replacing the vacuum secondary spring with a stiffer one. It feels
like it pulls much stronger now, with no flat spots at all. It also
seems to have butt-loads more low-end torque now. Oh, and on the
advice of Brian Kelley, I dropped in a different accelerator pump
squirter before I changed the carb over. It made a noticable difference
in throttle-response. This made me feel very stupid, because I've always
thought that it wouldn't be worth it to change the squirter, but it
definitely was, no question. Anyone want a free #37 squirter for their
carbed Mustang? It came with two and I only needed one...
Anyway, on Sunday I travelled up to Dan Malek's house to work on getting
my factory tach to work with the MSD 6AL I'm running. MANY interesting
things were discovered! I originally got the MSD because my stock spark
box was intermittently failing and leaving me stranded (temporarily, most
of the time) in the damnest places. Usually I could just pound it a few
times and it would come back online, but I was sick of dealing with it,
and the MSD wasn't that expensive from Summit, so I figured what the
hell... So I install the MSD according to the directions. The instructions
that came with it mention somewhere in small print that some factory
ford tachs might not work with it. Gee, I sure wish Summit had told me
that before! OK, no problem... I'll just buy the $40 fix for the tach
and be through with it. But no, that'd be too easy. When I tried to
use my air conditioner, the compressor wouldn't cycle! What the hell
does the AC have to do with the spark box? OK, so I'll get another
Dura-crap box from Menard's and use it to run the AC and tach, and
to trigger the MSD too. But that's really a kludge, and it bugs the
hell out of me, so that's what Dan and I are going to figure out. Also,
since I got the new spark-box from Menard's, I couldn't hook the vacuum
advance back up. It would kill the motor right away as soon as the
vacuum line was connected to the nipple. That one had me baffled for
a long time too. Well, we started by hooking everything up to run with
just the MSD, so I could show Dan how things didn't work. We disconnected
the trigger-wire from the Duraspark to the MSD, and hooked up the magnetic
trigger wires from the distributer up to the MSD. We had to retime it
at that point, because for some reason the instructions for the MSD
reversed the colors of the two wires coming out of the distributer.
If you reverse those sensor wires, what you get is timing that's exactly
22.5 degrees out of whack. That got me in trouble too, but it was
easy enough to find, and timing is no big deal. Anyway, I was telling
Dan about how the AC didn't work when running the MSD alone. Just for
the hell of it, Dan wanted to hook up the tach-feed up and see if it
worked. It didn't. Anyway, I want to show him how the AC doesn't work
So I flip on the AC and it works fine! Boy did I feel like an ass.
Well, as it turns out, we shut the car off because the exhaust was
blowing back into the garage, and when we started it back up, the AC
DIDN'T work!!!! Then, while the car was still running and the AC wouldn't
cycle, we touched the tach feed to the MSD tach output, and voila! The
AC started to cycle normally even after we removed the wire from the
tach output. As best we can tell, something somewhere that's not on
any wiring diagrams latches a signal from the tach wires telling it
that the engine is running. Whatever type of sensor it was worked fine
with the MSD, even if the tachometer itself didn't. So now that we had
that figured out, and had also developed a theory for why the vacuum
advance worked with the MSD, but not with the Duraspark, we were ready
to move on to WHY the tach didn't work.
BTW, the reason I think the vacuum advance would kill the motor is that
the spark-box might not be from a V8. Since the V8 fires twice as many
times per revolution as the 4 cylinder, it looks to the spark-box to be
turning at twice the rpm as the V8. Now this shouldn't matter, and it'll
still run, except I think it has something in there that checks to see if the
sum of the mechanical and vacuum advance is over a certain threshold. If
it is, it kills the spark thinking that you're going to get detonation
and blow up the motor. Since it thinks the V8 is running twice as fast
as it really is, I think it assumes that the advance is twice the mechanical
plus the vacuum, which is over that threshold, and it kills it. That's
just my theory, but I don't really care anymore since I'm not using the
Duraspark! :^)
Anyway, to figure out why the tach wasn't working, Dan pulled his handy-
dandy O-scope out of the basement and we started analyzing the differences
between the duraspark's tach output and the MSD's. Turns out the stock
tach signal is 12v for 6ms at 1000rpm. The MSD was 6v for 3ms at 1000rpm.
Hmmm... Well, at first we thought that the hold time was causing the
problem. Dan talked to a friend of his and came up with the idea of
putting a triggered timer in the ciruit that would use the MSD as a trigger
....
Just for the hell of it, though, I asked Dan if he had anything that could
simulate a tach signal, so we could see exactly what was needed to run
the tach. Out comes Dan with his trusty signal generator! We hooked it
up to the tach wires and the O-scope and went to work... It turns out
that it's the Voltage of the MSD that doesn't allow it to run the stock
tach. Dan set up a 3ms 6v pulse identical to the MSD's, and then we
slowly raise the hold time to 6ms. No dice. Then we put it back and
slowly raised the voltage. BINGO! At 12v, the tach would just right up
to the right rpm. So if anyone is having trouble hooking an MSD up and
keeping the stock tach, now you know why it won't work!
Dan's working on building me something to put inline to use 12v, so I
should have a tach in no-time. Also, my AC is working fine now, and so
is the vacuum advance. What a weekend! On friday afternoon I was cursing
the car and thinking of driving it into the Charles, and now I love it!
It's getting much better milage and has gobs more low-end...
Well, that's more than long enough now... I hope someone benefits from
this post by not making some of the same mistakes that I made! :^)
20 Oct 1993
bkelley@pms706.pms.ford.com (Brian Kelley)
mustangs%hpda.cup.hp.com@cup.hp.com
Chuck Fry writes:
>ABS and dual air bags are now marketing essentials. Let's face it,
>safety sells these days, even (especially?) in the segment of the auto
>market that produces the most serious crashes. I think you will see a
>lot of GTs come off the line with ABS, and that it will be combined into
>one of the "preferred options" packages at a discount.
I went and priced a Z28 on Monday, just to have some reliable information.
The base price for the Z28 with the LT1 is $16,7xx. For $144 you get
245-50-16 GS-C tires and for about $120 you get a performance rear axle
ratio. That is essentially how I would buy the car - (if I wanted a
Camaro). The base GT would still cost more, and ABS would raise the price
another $1,000(!). The Z28 has the same anti-theft system as the 'vette
and it should improve things quite a bit (it is a fairly good computer
based system). I haven't heard if the Mustang has a decent theft
prevention system. Anyone know?
On the Camaro, ABS and the 6 speed are standard. Titus' comments on
the 6 speed were really pathetic and I was disappointed that Ford (he
being their rep) stooped that low. Ford engineers really wanted to
put that trans in the Mustang but it was canceled because of the
cost. FYI, this is not the German ZF trans that is in the 'vette.
It is the same Borg-Warner used in the Viper. And Titus had the nerve to
suggest that the gears break? We all know how bullet proof the T-5 is...
Just fragile enough that they can make big money selling parts and
rebuilds. They generally don't build transmissions like the 4 speed
toploader anymore. They work too well and last too long. The
toploader I have in the Capri has never been rebuilt (aside from seals)
and it works great. It is from a '68 Mustang and is just about my age.
Ah, the good ole days :-)
>Marketing aside, I have it on good authority that the 4-wheel discs on
>the base car and the GT are mostly for show. The front brakes are no
>bigger than before, and the rears use tiny pads and the discs aren't
>even vented! As my source said, "The rear brakes are barely large
>enough for parking brakes."
I disagree. The brake development engineer who did the Mustang brakes
is a friend of mine and he spent a huge amount of time finding combinations
that work on these cars. Pad material, pedal effort, rotor thickness,
hydraulic ratio, rotor diameter and pad surface area, among other
factors, were all tuned to provide an acceptable solution. The 4 link
rear end on the Mustang does Not work, so putting big brakes back there
won't work without major suspension design changes. Larger brakes will
just cause lockup or hop.
I haven't had much interest in the GT brake package. The brakes on that car
are definitely an improvement, but they aren't $17,000 brakes. Then again,
without the DOHC one could argue that it doesn't need huge brakes.
I won't consider a new Mustang until I can get at least 300 HP and great
brakes. The brakes on the Cobra R are killer. They are essentially 'vette
brakes. But don't take any ribbing from GM types. The Cobra front
calipers are 15% stiffer than what the 'vettes run (the latest generation
are black and have "Cobra" cast in :-)
Those brakes will stop the car from 100 to 0 without fade until the
suspension bushings around the brakes get hot enough to melt. Fortunately,
an exec on the program said he wanted zero fade in the brakes. He went
out and did about 25 back to back 100 to 0 stops on the current Cobra R
brakes until the bushings did just that (rough job, eh?). He then
decided that he wanted those brakes on the car. I suspect we will see
those brakes on any Mustang with the 4.6. From a source outside of Ford
I have heard the T-bird will get the 4.6 before the Mustang (of course
I could never say what I have heard from inside of Ford).
>And given Ford's policy not to build a
>tail-happy car, my guess is that the brake balance will still be heavily
>biased toward the front. Under these conditions, ABS is probably a must
>for the street; that way the forward brake bias won't cause you to plow
>directly off the road at the first hint of rain.
It is the rear end.. You just can't cover up the serious flaws. On
a better design, you can tolerate much more rear brake and still have
a well behaved car. Don't believe the marketing hype you have been
reading about the new Mustang being tame and manageable. Anyone who
has driven a Mustang at the limit and doesn't hesitate to use all of
the power knows that car will bite you. Once you get a lot of sideways
experience you learn to just accept it and deal with it, but the Mustang
is tough to drive fast. The new Mustang is no exception. Any car
with that much torque and that much suspension bind is going to be a
handful..
Major news last night.. A friend of mine who drives a late model 'vette
drove the Capri at Grattan recently. I couldn't believe it, but he
actually said he thought the 3 link in the Capri put power down better
than the IRS in his 'vette. He has been an IRS zealot in a major way.
We've had a long standing debate about the merits of solid rear ends vs.
IRS rear ends at the track and the lack of IRS Corvette dominance in GT1.
The corner of significance was the hairpin. The rear just puts down
gobs of power there without drama (it just stays planted).
I would be extremely skeptical of an IRS in the Mustang. Who knows
how strong it would be or what the design would be like. We might end
up with something that will take much more money and effort to get
results (instead of a simple 3 link or torque arm). There are a lot
of bushings to replace in an IRS :-)
>I can only hope they decide to put *serious* brakes on the Cobra. The
>'93 Cobra R brakes were just about big enough.
The Cobra R brakes are big enough, IMHO. Those are great brakes and
a huge amount of testing has gone into them. I think that those brakes
with a 300+ HP engine will be pretty decent, as long as the price is
...
buy a '93 LX 5.0 for $13K. Throw $7,000-$10,000 at that LX and you
will be intimidated by the limits of your car - the brakes, handling and
acceleration.
I have heard some talk of low end 'vettes for less money. I don't know
if anything will come of it. GM is hurting for cash and with the new
Camaro and the current 'vette, I'm not sure that they can even consider
any programs of this sort. Still, if they can offer a no-frills 'vette
with a minimum of options at a price that competes with a DOHC 4.6L
Mustang, I will be very tempted.
21 Oct 1993
Ken_Corpus.Wbst139@xerox.com
mustangs@hpermsp.cup.hp.com
I just received my 1994 Mustang Product Information notebook in the mail
yesterday. This is the same book that all the magazine editors used to build
their articles from. Pretty nice piece of work, I might add. One of the best
product info booklets I've seen. Here are some items of interest that have
recently come up on the list:
Exhaust:
"Fabricated stainless-steel headers feed a true dual exhaust system tuned for
minimal restriction, maximum power and a rousing V-8 rumble. One light-off and
two underbody catalysts, in a single convertor, are fitted in each exhaust
pipe, and twin mufflers are located in front of the rear axle."
Transmission:
"While the T5 transmission is used with both the 3.8-liter and 5.0-liter
engines, gear sets are relatively the same ratio; however, they are stronger in
the V-8 application to provide the necessary torque capacity. Only two changes
in the T5 were deemed necessary for the 1994 model year: steel replaces
aluminum for the throwout bearing guide material in the V-6, and there's a new
bonded carbon-fiber synchronizer lining to improve shift quality."
Four-wheel Disc Brakes:
"Brake system upgrades are extensive. Both the standard and GT models now
feature four-wheel disc brakes with 10.9-inch (276mm) vented front rotors and
10.5-inch (267mm) solid rear rotors. The brake booster is significantly larger
and brake pads are made of asbestos=free composite materials." (There is no
difference what-so-ever from the base model and the GT brakes, according to
this book.)
"A Bosch ABS2U ABS system is optional on both models. This state-of-the-art
system uses four wheel-speed sensors and three hydraulic channels to maintain
steering control and avoid wheel lockup during agressive braking. Each front
wheel is independently controlled. A "select low" strategy modulates brake
system pressure on both rear wheels when either rear wheel-speed sensor signals
the need for ABS control. This Bosch system is software programmable and has
16K ROM memory. During an emergency stop, the ABS actually learns from the
first cycle of use and adjusts itself for optimum performance - maximum
directional control with minimum stopping distance on all road surfaces."
One of the options listed in an Anti-Theft system, but no details are given.
It does not appear (from the options chart) that it is inter-related with the
Mach 460 sound system, (but its probably going to be needed to keep it in the
dash!)
Standard options on the GT model which are not on the base model:
Rear wing (not a spoiler!), fog lights, GT Mustang fender badges, 150 MPH
speedometer (instead of 120 MPH), GT seats with added support and power lumbar,
leather wrapped steering wheel, shift handle and brake handle, traction-lok
rear axle, and OPTION GROUP 1 which includes power side windows, power door
locks and power decklid release.
[I think I mentioned that the hood and rear decklid are made of composite
material in one of my earlier notes.]
According to the AAMA Specifications listing, the rear decklid is steel, while
the hood is made of composite material.
21 Oct 1993
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
Yesterday, I wrote:
> Yes. Electramotive (the Nissan go-fast folks who advertise in the back
> of Autoweek) bought a major portion of Saleen's stock of wheels and
> hub adapters when the airbag steering wheel made them essentially
> obsolete....
Wel, I'm an *utter* spaz. it's not Electramotive, it's Electrodyne.
800-658-8850, 703-823-0202. They do sell Nissan go-fast stuff, among
others, but they never raced them in GTP. I haven't called them to
find out if they have any of these left, they're not open this early.
But I wanted to correct the misinformation before Don Devendorf's
secretary got tired of fielding phone calls from guys looking for
Mustang steering wheels...
Mea friggin' culpa. I slept since then. Electrosomethingorother...
21 Oct 1993
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
mustangs@hpermsp.cup.hp.com
On Oct 21, Ken Corpus wrote:
> Exhaust:
> "Fabricated stainless-steel headers feed a true dual exhaust system tuned for
> minimal restriction, maximum power and a rousing V-8 rumble. One light-off and
> two underbody catalysts, in a single convertor, are fitted in each exhaust
> pipe, and twin mufflers are located in front of the rear axle."
The headers are a very similar design to those that have been used
since '86, and still have the very tight restriction right at the
ports where the tubes are dimpled for the header bolts. I keep hoping
that Ford will decide to use a socket-head cap screw, or at least a
reduced-dimeter head there, so that the reliefs can be much smaller
for the assembly line tooling (which is the only reason that they are
so restricive at that point). The aftermarket will rally around
instantly, and there's be CARB-approved replacements by early next
year. No problem.
> Four-wheel Disc Brakes:
> "Brake system upgrades are extensive. Both the standard and GT models now
> feature four-wheel disc brakes with 10.9-inch (276mm) vented front rotors and
> 10.5-inch (267mm) solid rear rotors. The brake booster is significantly larger
> and brake pads are made of asbestos=free composite materials." (There is no
> difference what-so-ever from the base model and the GT brakes, according to
> this book.)
The calipers are a whole new design, both front and rear, that hasn't
appeared on a Mustang before. The rotors are thinner (I think that
they are .810 thick, but I'll get a chance to pull some off a car and
measure them very soon), and the calipers are ring-mount single piston
sliders. The good news is that the ring mount should go a long way
towards correcting the taper wear that is pretty much unavoidable in
the pin-mount sliders. The ring absorbs the pad thrust loads, so that
any deflection doesn't cause the caliper to cock. The bad news is that
the pad area is significantly smaller than the 87-93 brakes, and all
of our hard-won tuning tricks go out the window. Oh, well, such is
the march of progress.
One other bit of news is that the rotors appear to have a much thicker
working face, and a much thinner open vent area, than the current
rotors. This may allow them to absorb more abuse before warping in
street use (intermittent hard braking), but may cause a few
difficulties for track use, since the cooling airflow through the
rotor will be much reduced. It'll be interesting to see how they pan
out.
The rear caliper is quite small. From what I could see, the pad area
appears to be about 1.5" x 2". In any case, the rear calipers are
smaller than those on my wife's '91 Capri, and the pad area is about
50% less. I'll reserve judgement on them until someone fries the first
set on the track, but I suspect that the pads (both front and rear)
will face _major_ challenges in track use. They'll probably be quite
adequate for street use, though. It'll be a while before the
aftermarket catches up with exotic pad materials for this new
application. I haven't seen these calipers in use on any other car in
the Ford line, but then I haven't worked at it very hard. The PBR
brakes from the '93 Cobra R are much more applicable to extreme use,
well proven, and hopefully easy to adapt. I'll be very interested in
seeing what the caliper mounting bsses look like on the front spindle.
It'd be very tidy if the PBR calipers would just bolt right up, like
the Lincoln calipers did on the older cars...
>
>
> "A Bosch ABS2U ABS system is optional on both models. This state-of-the-art
> system uses four wheel-speed sensors and three hydraulic channels to maintain
> steering control and avoid wheel lockup during agressive braking. Each front
> wheel is independently controlled.
The Bosch box is pretty sizeable, and therein lies a possible problem.
It is mounted in the extreme front of the passenger's side of the
engine compartment, and is actually hung from the radiator support.
Thus, all of the brake lines are routed forward to the radiator
support, across to the other side, and then aft to the appropriate
locations. In so doing, they run right along the support, just aft of
the fiberglass chin spoiler. The support is the first structural
member aft of the plastic nose and bumper support.
Thus, if you buy an ABS-equipped car, I'd suggest that you not hit
anything with the nose of the car. If you hit something hard enough to
overcome the bumper absorbers and distort the radiator support, the
next thing to get involved is your entire braking system. I forecast
some hard times for Ford over this one. Sooner or later, someone will
sue them for some real or imagined connection between the location of
the box, brake failure, and a second or third impact in a multi-impact
crash. It seems a more sensible location would be towards the middle
of the survival zone of the structure, and not out at the margins in
the designed-in crumple zone.
It's certainly true that Ford has done the Federally-mandated crash
testing, and the car must have passed or they wouldn't be selling it.
Consequently, they must be pretty confident in that location. I'm not
interested in owning an ABS-equipped car, but that's just me. If I
were to get one of these cars, I'd omit (or remove!) the ABS, but you
all know that I'm wierd about my brakes anyway...
All this is just my opinion and observations, just FYI.
21 Oct 1993
Chuck Fry
I have a couple of questions about installing the Front springs that I got.
So far I have read two different methods of installation :
1) Remove the calipers, the front sway bar link, mark the strut and unbolt
it, and take out the spring (having it compressed with the tool or mechanic's
safety wire).
2) Hayne's manual recommends to unbolt the front sway bar link, the control
arm from the K member while the spring is under compression with the tool or
wire.
Now, option number two seems to be easier and less disruptive to my
alignement but I wonder why most people that I have seen use method number one.
Why should (1) be more disruptive to alignment than (2)? (1) is
certainly easier. Pulling the control arm off the K-member is a bear
because of the location of the bolts, and you still have the strut in
the way once you get the arm loose.
If the ride height changes at all, you have to re-align the front end
anyway, thanks to something called bump steer. Just about anything you
do to the front end really requires an alignment.
Speaking of alignments, I have here something called a Hit Man alignment
kit, which costs about $100. When I get through playing with other
people's race cars I will try it and report my results.
21 Oct 1993
"Eric R. Nelson "
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
I thought I should report on the installation and performance of my new
Kenny Brown lower chassis brace.
Installation was a snap. Four bolts, half an hour.
I bought the Brown brace due to suggestions from the list that it was
better than most since it had four points of contact with the K members
rather than two.
I can feel a difference in the corners. In conjunction with the subframes,
the car feels a lot more stable when pushed in a corner. Basically, the
front end doesn't feel like it wanders as much as it used to. This is fairly
confidence inspiring. In normal driving, I don't notice the brace at
all like I did the subframes when I put them in.
I'm a satisfied customer. Now all I need is $1400 for springs, and struts,
and brakes, and......
23 Oct 1993
stangle@wyvern.wyvern.com (Tom Stangler)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
It runs! The engine transplant was a success.
as a quick summary, I put a SVO GT-40 long block (B303 cam, GT40 heads) in
my 86 5.0. To that I added 24# injectors, I converted to MAF from Speed
density, 70 mm tb, egr, and maf, MAC full length headers, h-pipe, 2.5 inch
Walkers, and tail pipe pieces, 4 row BBK radiator, GT40 intake, Phenolic
spacer, and the hd convertable engine mounts.
I encountered problems with the old front strut tower brace now hitting on
the upper intake due to the extra heigth of the phenolic spacer, so I will
have to replace that. I adapted the fan shroud to the radiator. I
lengthened the lines on the O2 sensors (which were replaced), replaced the
driveshaft due to streached yokes that were not retaining the u-joint
bearing cups (bought the almunium driveshaft). Installed a new clutch while
I was in there. Put Moble 1 synthetic ATF in the trans.
I turned it over friday night, after about 15 minutes of turning the oil
pump (wanted to be sure it was prelubed!) with a socket and drill. I was one
full gear tooth off on the distributor, so it didn't want to start much.
Repositioned the distributor, and it sprang to life. Found one leak, so I
reinstalled the thermostat housing to cure it.
the headers glowed! Seemed like a lean condition. refired it and that seems
to have gone away. Expect it was the new computer learning the engine.
Sounds GREAT! Love that exhaust note! Full lengths with no cats and walkers
makes for a sweet tune, all 2.5 inch diameters.
I'm reading the computer book that has been talked about here. got it about
the time it was mentioned. I expect to run the code test to see if there is
anything in there. Hopefully it will be clear. Need to reset the timing,
check the throttle position sensor, then go get 500 miles on it.
I go to charlotte next weekend for a track event. It should be a blast with
the 3.55's installed.
Boy, am I a happy camper! I gotta find me some new comaros to tease....:-)
25 Oct 1993
chrisbe@smtpcc.autodesk.com
mustang@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
First, I would like to thank all of you who responded to my Spring
installation questions. The result was: Stay away from Haynes suggestion.
I started on friday morning to take my wheel, Caliper and End-link off,
fighting through the gunky undecoating that the FORD dealer overspayed on
everything. I got all the tools that I neded but one - the impact wrench (or
cheater bar). Well the two bolts from the strut stopped me right there. All
the screaming, cussing and sweat flowing out of my body was applied on those
bolts and they would not even budge at all. I thought those bolts were welded
on there. I hate to say it but I gave up that idea and said to hell with it,
an air tool will have no problem with these couple of bolts. My wife called
around and Charlie's Mustang happened to be free in the afternoon to do it. I
slapped everything together and brought the car and the springs to his shop.
Bowing to the air compressor for its magical strength I observed how
everything fell appart before its 650lb-ft of torque - I got to get one of
those things when I get my own garage.
In the end everything fell into place and just looked great. While I was at
it I asked Charlie to put in the Polygraphite bushings for the fron antisway
bar and the upper strut mounts. Charlie, like usual did a great job, fast and
affordale too. The car sat menacingly low, and after a test drive I had a big
smile engraved on my face. 140 miles or so later, after taking all the
corners I usually drive faster than I usually take them, I tried to settle in
my suspension. Got a computerized alignement after detecting a little tug to
the right on straight flat roads at Midas, which got rid of the problem.
The results were -1.1 on the left and -0.9 degrees on the right for my new
camber setting (right where I was aming at hoping for not too much of a good
thing). I have no space between the top crest of my fron wheel fender opening
and the top of my tire, and 1/2 inch at the rear tire/top-of-opening - giving
my convertible a bolder look. Aside from the look, it has greatly enhanced
the way my car handles now and increased my confidence of taking on corners
(no more of this massive leaning stuff). With the Global West Subframe
connectors I *feel* the road in every way now. And for 50 dollars for the
spring set, it was definitely worth it :)
Now I can play with that viper that lives around here on more fair terms.
Springs : Saleen Racecraft Specific rate for GT's
Bushings: Saleen polygraphite bushings.
Thanks again for all your friendly advice.
26 Oct 1993
Chuck Fry
To everyone:
I have slight warping of my front rotors. So I was always planning
on replacing them.
Slight warping and minor surface checking can be corrected by turning
the rotors, which is considerably cheaper than buying new rotors. Or is
there more serious damage here?
So I'm planning on getting:
Bendix rotors (prices starting at $24 at local parts place) - I know
I should ask for SVO rotors if they give me a choice.
(1) I don't know if SVO rotors are the same as 5.0 rotors. What model
year is your car?
(2) The last time I bought Bendix rotors for my '89, they were
considerably more than $24 each -- closer to $60 each (with club
discount!) if I remember right.
I was thinking about replacing the bearings - Would any U.S. brand
bearing do?
Skod recommended the following bearings specifically. You can find them
at your local industrial bearing supply house. I just bought 4 sets and
was pleasantly surprised at the price.
Timken part numbers:
LM12749 (inboard bearing)
LM12710 (inboard outer race)
LM48548 (outboard bearing)
LM48510 (outboard outer race)
The industry numbers for the sets are A12 inboard, A5 outboard.
I know to look for steel cages. Should I use the races
that come with the brakes or with the bearings?
Use the races that come with the bearings. You have no idea what kind
of steel is in the races that come with the rotors, nor how it's been
hardened.
And if its with the
bearings how do I remove and more importantly install bearing races?
Get a brass drift and tap the existing races out. To install the new
ones, get a set of bearing race and seal drivers. These are soft
aluminum pieces with a taper that fit the bearing perfectly and help you
tap it in straight.
The reason I'm thinking about replacing the bearings is a slight "howl"
coming from the front left wheel. It goes away when the wheel is turned
slightly right. The tire is brand new - and the "howl" seems to be
getting louder. So since I'm going to replace the rotors anyway...
Swap those bearings out ASAP!!
If the spindal is noticably damaged I will replace it -
should I replace it if it is "blued". Would I be risking lossing a wheel
later on if I didn't?
Chances are good the spindle will not be seriously damaged; the bearings
are designed to take all the abuse. If you see serious wear on the
spindle -- most likely abrasion, not bluing -- replace it. The bearings
are supposed to be a snug fit but Ford builds the spindles a little
undersized.
28 Oct 1993
bkelley@pms706.pms.ford.com (Brian Kelley)
mustangs%hpda.cup.hp.com@cup.hp.com
I have been asked about the new Mustang brakes, spindles, etc.
The spindles are very different than the '93 and earlier production.
The new spindles will accept the larger PBR calipers as a direct bolt-on.
You will need 17" wheels to fit the calipers. The caliper will extend
about .75" axially beyond the face of the wheel mounting face. You may
very well run into some wheel offset problems. I'd probably order the
wheels last :-)
The strut mount holes on the new spindle are 1.25" lower than the
'93. This could create valving issues with your struts (nothing
custom valving couldn't correct). That problem does not appear to be
very significant. You would need to check the bump steer and possibly
relocate the steering rack. You will need a Big washer between the
top of the spindle and the spindle anchor nut.
So, it is possible to adapt the new spindles to an older car.
However, you'd should be pretty serious and feel very comfortable doing this
sort of work before considering doing this yourself. If not, just spend the
cash and call Baer Racing. There are only a few trackies on the list who
really need to be considering this type of upgrade.
29 Oct 1993
Robert Seymour
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
Here is a mostly complete list of the changes in the Mustang lineup since
1987. There are a few more items that I haven't had time to merge into
this file, but you get the basic idea... If you have any corrections or
additions, I'd like to hear them (I've been meaning to finish this for a
while).
1987
A major styling overhaul helped update the rather aged look of the
Mustang. Exterior changes included aerodynamic headlights, a sleeker look
all around, and larger spoilers. The GT model recieved an aggressive
aerodynamic treatment with a large front air dam featuring round fog
lights, non-functional side scoops, large rear valance (which unfortunatly
trapped air like a parachute), louvered rear lights, and raised wing.
Interior was changed to include an instrument pod instead of the previous
flat faced panel, contoured dash, and side panels. The old heads were
reintroduced along with a refined upper intake manifold, increasing the
output to 225hp. The 2.3L turbo and 3.8L V-6 engines were removed leaving
the normally aspirated 2.3L and the 5.0L as the only engine options. 11 x
1 in. front rotors, up from 10 in. helped braking which certainly needed
(and still does).
1988
California cars were converted to mass air system. Cooling system capacity
was increased as was the T5 lubricant resevior.
1989
49 states cars were equipped with the mass air system used on only
California cars the year before. A 140 mph speedo replaced the inadequate
85 mph unit used previously. Some T-5s were equipped with a seven tooth
speedometer gear. The horse and bars emblem was added above the glove box
on the dash. LX 5.0L were given the sport seats from the GT.
A 25th Anniversary Edition was sold, but the only changes from stock were
emerald green paint and white leather all around. This special earned the
nickname the 7-up car, as it matched the color scheme of a can of 7-up.
All Mustangs produced from April 17, 1989 to April 17, 1990 had a special
badge on the dash commemorating 25 years of the Mustang, the 7-up car
included.
1990
A drivers airbag in all models was the major addition for 89. Goodyear
Eagle GT+4s replaced the previous base Eagle GT tires, giving better
traction in wet weather and bad conditions. The T-5 speedo gear was
switched to eight teeth. Rear seats recieved three point belts. Strut
towers were made to accept more caster and negative camber. Tie rod ends
were modified slightly to improve bump steer. (I'm unsure if there were
K-member changes in addition to these, anyone know for sure?).
1991
GT models used a low friction ball joint and improved inner bushing
control arms in the suspension. Base equipment was increased to include
power mirrors, cruise control, and GT sport seats. Five spoke aluminum
wheels with 225/55 Goodyears were introduced as standard equipment on 5.0L
cars. Front wheel wells were modified slightly to make it easier to use
big wheel/tire combinations. Side doors were changed slightly with beefed
up side impact bars and readjustments in the window gear.
1992
Side moldings were painted to match the cars color instead of using black
on all models. Tires were switched to Michelin GTXs.
1993
The SVT Cobra was introduced in a limited run of 5000 units as a farewell
for the Fox Mustang. The Special Vehicle Team rumaged the SVO bin and came
up with a dose of high end breathing. GT-40 heads and intake impove the
upper end a great deal while new geometry and softer springs and shocks
help both handling and ride quality. 17" wheels shod with Goodyears are
backed by four wheel discs, providing a firm grip. A prancing horse once
again graces the grill of a Mustang. Aerodynamics are largely an
adaptation of the GT trim. Rear lights are from the SVO, thankfully
replacing the stupid GT louvers. The 94 Mustang, combining 65 styling with
a new platform (no more Fairmonts :-), will be released in December with
the 5.0L and T5/AOD (an MV8 future is still waiting). The 3.8L V-6 will be
reintroduced as the base model option, replacing the 2.3L I-4. More
details can be obtained from any number of automobile magazines.
29 Oct 1993
hdmwi@chevron.com
mustangs%hpda.cup.hp.com@cup.hp.com
It was rumored that the 90 and up cars had more caster via a slightly
relocated upper strut mount. I have no idea if this is true or not. Anybody
measured any camber curves recently???
29 Oct 1993
bstdenis@mailbox.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (Brian StDenis)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
When it is time to replace brakes, you do have a decision or two to make.
The first is if you want to use equivalent to stock pads or try for some
better ones. I think you can get equivalent to stock pads for $30. If
you are easy on brakes (ie normal use) and don't need any high-temp
performance from them, I guess they'll be ok.
If you want to upgrade to better pads, the price range varies. A buddy has
bought some high-friction carbon-metallic pads from a trucking company
for $30. He was sure they would do great. After wearing these brand new
pads down to the backing plate in about five 7 lap sessions, he won't be
buying $30 pads any more.
Then there are more proven mid-price pads. Performance Friction makes
some carbon-metallic pads that are just awesome. They cost a little
more than $60 but are well worth it. At the same event that my buddy
wore his new pads to nothing, the PF pads held up fine. And, I had much
more braking power to boot at the end of each session. I have done
sessions about 1 hour in length on these pads with a consistent level of
braking. (The track wasn't that hard on brakes, though, unlike the one
where my buddy's pads wore away.)
Finally, you can get race pads. Porterfield comes to mind. The pads
they offered to me were about $130. That was too steep for my blood
considering how great the PF pads work.
About brake fluid, you'll want good (high boiling point) fluid if you are
going to do multi-lap sessions on a track. If you aren't racing, then just
flush the fluid with new and keep it clean and bled.
The original poster mentioned "having my brakes..." as if he was going
to pay for the service. I am not an expert machanic, but replacing pads
and rotors is pretty easy and doesn't take too many tools. I felt very
proud of myself after completeing these two jobs. If you have some time,
I'd suggest saving the money and doing it yourself. Also, any type of
performance minded person should know as much as possible about brakes
considering what is at stake which makes doing the work even more of
a good idea.
29 Oct 1993
bkelley@pms706.pms.ford.com (Brian Kelley)
mustangs%hpda.cup.hp.com@cup.hp.com
>Then there are more proven mid-price pads. Performance Friction makes
>some carbon-metallic pads that are just awesome. They cost a little
>more than $60 but are well worth it.
Ah, but the original poster indicating that he was not willing to give
up cold stopping performance. That rules out the PF's, in my mind. The
first stop of the day isn't very confidence inspiring. I do like the
pads. I've run Bendix Semi-metallics and I should add that they also don't
do very well on the first stop of the day.
29 Oct 1993
Chuck Fry
priggew@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu
I'll second Brian St. Denis's recommendation for Performance Friction
pads. They wear like iron even in track use, stop reasonably well,
don't tear up rotors, and cost about $70 an axle set the last time I
checked. Scott will probably recommend the CC Motorsports Cool Carbons,
which are considerably more expensive -- and more effective.
In the rear, there's not much to say. I am currently running Bendix
non-asbestos shoes, which cost me about $30 for the axle set. I don't
have enough miles to comment on them yet. I have been told these have a
higher coefficient of friction than ordinary linings, but I can't say I
notice the difference yet. I'll have more to say in December, after my
next track date.
For street cars, stick with the Ford OEM brake fluid. It's cheap,
readily available, and more than adequate. If you take your car to the
track, you'll need something better than Ford fluid. Motul seems to be
popular around here with the open-track set, and I've heard no
complaints of boiling from those who use it. I've laid in a couple of
liters and plan to flush my car's lines with it shortly.
One caution: Racing brake fluids are a bad idea for the street. Motul
and other hi-zoot brake fluids are compounded to have a very high dry
boiling point, at the expense of a low wet BP. (The lower wet BP is the
main reason racing brake fluids are graded DOT 3 and not DOT 4.) Racers
bleed their brakes on a regular basis at the track, ensuring that the
fluid in the calipers is fresh and dry. Street cars are more likely to
have old fluid that has absorbed moisture from the atmosphere. Year-old
racing brake fluid is just a little bit better than water when it comes
to boiling point.
Never reuse brake fluid that has come out of a car. And throw away any
half-used containers of brake fluid that have been on the shelf for more
than a few days, especially racing brake fluid. It's an expensive
habit, but especially in Mustangs, not following these rules will give
you instant fluid boilover at the track, and you will not enjoy the long
brake pedal that results.
29 Oct 1993
Chuck Fry
One guy in our club is running Ford Bronco (of some vintage) drum shoes
(semi mets) on his street/track/autox Mustang. No complaints yet from
him. Has anyone on the list done this?
I see no reason this shouldn't work. They're the same 9" drums.
I chose non-asbestos linings in part because of the supposed higher Cf,
but mostly because I work on my own car and I don't want to breathe
asbestos!
The industry standard number for Mustang shoes is 474, if I remember
correctly. Your local auto parts warehouse probably has 2 or 3 variants
on this number with different compounds. Any will fit, but some will
work better than others.
Some extremely heavy duty applications use sintered metal linings. One
name for this material is Velvetouch(tm). They're hell on rotors and
drums, but they'll withstand one Hell of a lot of heat.
Check with a brake supply specialist if you want something special.
They can usually come up with a wider variety of compounds. Out here,
one good one is Cal Brake Supply in Hayward, (510) 293-9100.
If you *must* have custom linings, Porterfield will put his Carbon
Kevlar material on shoes. There may be others. It won't be cheap, and
chances are very good you will have rear brake lockup. High-Cf linings
and servo drum brakes don't mix! See Puhn's "Brake Handbook", published
by HP Books, for specifics.
29 Oct 1993
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
On Oct 29, Bill Prigge wrote:
> Well seeing how today is payday and my trusted pony is greatly in need of
> brake work its time to ask the net what brake pads & shoes they would
> recommend for a high mileage 87 gt that only sees the street. I'm
> interested in something that will improve performance without sacrificing
> streetability and cold braking performance. I'm also having the rotors &
> drums turned and the brake fluid flushed and replaced. Thanks in advance
> for the responses.
Well, you've gotten lots of good responses here, so I'll just add my
two cents worth. If you are doing only gentle, sensible street
driving, my recommendation would be to go with the Motorsport M-2001C
semimetallic pads for the front. They are old technology, but they are
nice, inexpensive, reasonably long-lived, and well behaved pads. They
exhibit no "cold-stop" phenomena, like the PF pads, and they cost
about half as much- $40. The PFs are fine, also, as are some of the
semi-mets from companies like Wagner and Raybestos.
Despite the fact that I'm one of the main track weenies here, I run
some no-name semi-mets on the street most of the time (I have a stack
of them that come with my rebuilt calipers), and save my expensive
carbon pads for the track. This may change very shortly, as I'm still
awaiting a test set of some new carbon composite street pads that are
supposed to rival the old Braketech street carbon pads, which are what
you would _really_ want, if only they were still available!
For rear shoes, any of the aftermarket semi-mets will do, until
further notice. This nameless vendor is supposed to be making carbon
shoes, also. If their stuff is any good, I'll let the list know
_asap_.
Flushing out the fluid with fresh fluid is a very good idea. But I
wouldn't have the drums or rotors turned unless you have an
out-of-spec runout (which will give you a pulsing pedal). Turning the
rotors and drums is often done unnecessarily, and just uses up the
parts without much benefit in braking function or smoothness. Unless
you have a specific problem, don't do it. In particular, you don't
need to do it just to bed in new pads. New pads will bed in just fine
on your old rotors.
rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: late 80's Mustang questions
25 Oct 1993
>2. What are the differences between '85+ Mustang GTs and LX 5.0s? Is
>there any year/model more/less desireable?
There is effectively no difference between the GT and the LX once you
get past the dress-ups.
Ford introduced the roller hydraulic tappet version of the 5.0 (really
the tried-and-true 302) in 1985, beginning the modern Mustang era. The
quad shock suspension also started this year. The '85 with a stick was
the last year Ford offered a carburetor. Great motor! I had an '85 GT
and that baby loved to rev. But the carburetors are hard to maintain;
I've heard of many folks who had problems with them. If you MUST have a
carburetor, this is the year to get.
'86 was the first port EFI year. Horsepower and torque were lower than
for the following years. The '86 heads and intake don't offer much
hotrodding potential, and the 10" front disc brakes were upgraded the
next year, so don't bother. But this was the first year with the
stouter 8.8" rear axle.
'87 saw the introduction of the "225 HP" (later downrated to 205 HP w/
no changes) EFI motor, and 11" front disc brakes. In '89 ('88 for
California), the mass air sensor version of this motor was introduced.
Mass air is a must for any serious modifications; if you get an earlier
speed-density car, you will need to upgrade it to mass air before you
can install a blower. During this era, the GT came with "turbine" 15"
wheels as opposed to the "telephone dial" wheels on the LX.
Driver's side airbags became standard in '90 (I think), and 16" wheels
in '91. '91 also saw the HP rating downgraded to 205 from 225, but this
was a change in the way the HP was rated; the motor continued
essentially identical to previous years. The '93 Cobra introduced a
hotter motor with a unique intake system, for a substantial extra
charge. The Cobra also has a unique suspension which should work well
on the street but is likely to be a hindrance at the track.
>3. Assuming I get a Mustang for around $5k, I will have $2k to
>customize it. What are the best bang for the buck mods to a 5.0 for
>$2k or under? A friend had mentioned a Paxton (sp?) supercharger...
>Other performance mods are welcome.
Supercharger kits are $2500 and up. The Paxton gets mixed reviews; they
perform well, but longevity of the blower bearings seems to be a
problem. Vortechs are more expensive and noisier, but more durable.
Both are centrifugal superchargers. Kenne Bell has a positive
displacement supercharger kit in the same price range that is highly
touted. And there is the DDMI/Spearco twin turbo kit.
Then there's the laughing gas option, which may be a better choice for
drag racing. I don't have pricing info off the top of my head, but
several kits work with the fuel injection system.
Supercharged or nitrous motors are going to be hard on transmissions.
The T5 is marginal for drag racing with a stock motor, and blown motors
will tear it to shreds in no time. The Tremec 5-speed will remove
another $1300 or so from the upgrade budget. A clutch upgrade and
scattershield would be a good idea too, especially for straight-line
racing. And because these motors will demand more fuel than the stock
pump will supply, figure another $150 or so for an upgraded fuel pump.
If I had $2k to hop up my '89, I would go for the GT-40 heads and intake
setup, roller rockers, and some 1 5/8" "shorty" headers. This will
extend the useful RPM range of the motor beyond the stock 5000 RPM "out
of breath" point. Any left over cash would go to other exhaust upgrades
and a bigger MAF. And you can always add a blower later...
All IMHO, of course. Welcome to the club, and see you on the Mustangs
list!
01 Nov 1993
jdettori@lehman.com (John Dettori)
> Hi, I'm responding to your posts on the SVO.
> Are all turbo Mustangs (from the factory) SVOs? I've seen one or two
> here in Austin that say "GT Turbo" on the hood.
No, in fact rarity is one of the SVO's strong points. Only 9844 were made in
3 model years; the '85-1/2 is the rarest with < 500 units made. Note: an SVO
would be *very* hard to fake, since it has many unique part ( hood, fenders,
intercooled turbo, exhaust, seats, console, steering wheel, wheels, bi-plane
spoiler, shifter knob, brakes, suspension setup, etc. the list goes on!).
> There has been a lot of discussion about 4-wheel discs for the Mustang
> and using Lincoln parts, etc. Why aren't the SVO rear discs the obvious
> upgrade choice to replace the stock drums? Cost?
Cost. The SVO used a 5-lug hub. You'd have to change spindles, axle, etc.
While I don't know the procedure in detail, I'm convinced there's less expensive
ways to get 4-wheel discs.
> How different is the SVO block from the regular 2.3 liter block? You
> mentioned four-bolt mains.
The block is the same venerable cast iron block as the other 2.3ls. That's
where the similairity ends. It's beefed-up on the bottom end with thicker
main bearing caps, screw-in freexze plugs, larger bolts, and 4 of 'em. The
crank is different and I believe it's forged, plus there's a windage tray and
a better oiling system. The heads are radicially different, sporting large
canted valves, heavier springs, etc. that enables it's free-reving abilities (
I've taken mine past 6-grand ). The cam is pretty healthy, the distributor is
re-curved ( and includes a timing adjustment from inside the car ), and of
course, there's the intercooled turbo charger. All of this is right from
Ford's racing program ( that what Special Vehicles Operations is all about ),
where Ford campagnes many varieties of the 2.3l motor; there are *streetable*
forms that yield 700bhp!
> I have an '81 Mustang that I plan to tear down and "restore." Mostly
> because I like to take things apart and put them back together. Also
> because I want cheap transportation without having to drive a POS.
> I was already thinking of upgrading the brakes and doing something
> fun with the motor. It has the 200ci straight six in it now, which
> is enough power to keep me happy. But it might still be fun to
> put in a turbo four. I am more interested in the technical challenge
> than the go fast part. If I had a regular 2.3 from a junkyard,
> the turbo itself with the manifolds, an SVO computer(?), and
> misc. other parts could I put them together? Would that really be
> any cheaper or easier than just buying a used SVO motor or parts
> car?
Suggestion: the same motor minus the intercooler and the cam was in the '83-87
Turbo Coupe T-bird and the '84-'89 Merkur XR4-ti ( and I'm not sure, but I
think it appeared in a few other European Fords as well ). That give you any
ideas? Peter Sessler has written 2 books that deal with modifying your car
for street performance. The first published in 1985 "The Mustang Performance
& Handeling Guide 1964-1985" is the one that I own. Sessler gives practical
advice, motor by motor. On the 2.3, he advises "upgrading to SVO-like specs",
and tells you what aftermarket pieces to use. Unfortunately, except at a swap
meet, you won't find this book because it's out of print. He has, however,
authored a new one called "Mustang 5.0 Performance Handbook" for ALL 79-90
Mustangs including the SVO. I don't have it, but I assume it's as good.
The reason I responded to your post is that what happened to Shelbys, Bosses,
and Big Block Mustangs in the mid-70's is occuring now with the SVO! Public
awareness is low, and I keep hearing of cars being *given* away! My friend
Russ just bought an '84, solid, never hit, presentable enough to be a driver
and maybe $2,000 away from being an awesome car for $1,500! Scott Hollenbeck
can confirm my claim. I learned of another friend in Mass. who just bought a
beautiful mint Red '86 for $3,500. The bargins are out there, if you care to
look. Think about this: in 1987, I looked at a 1967 Shelby GT-350, needing
paint and minor floor work; the car had 32,000 miles on it, and the interior
was perfect. The car was advertised at $6,000. I talked him down to $5,200,
then passed on it; 3 months later someone bought the car for $4,500. Now, I
couldn't even get a wreck for $10,000! I kept the $6,000 ad and taped it to
the inside of my bedroom closet door. It's my way of kicking myself. Food for
thought.
> What transmissions were available for the SVO?
Only one: Specially modified T-5; came with a Hurst shifter: very narrow gate,
great for lightning fast shifts.
I'm active in the SVO Owner's Association; I've spent a small package out to
a few guys that have inquired (copy of a newletter, application, etc.). I'd
be happy to send one to anyone who sends me their address.
01 Nov 1993
bkelley@pms706.pms.ford.com (Brian Kelley)
mustangs%hpda.cup.hp.com@cup.hp.com
It was too cold to run at the track this weekend - 40 degrees. Still,
I had a burning need to heat the tires and take some hard corners.
After a suitable warmup, I headed out to my favorite unused industrial park..
Well, a few hard corners later I was making my way to the exit of the
park under hard acceleration when something let go in the rear end and
the car started to rotate.. I coasted to a stop and confirmed the
left axle was broken (Argh! One wheel peel). While my 9" is not a floater,
the axles are retained by plates, not C-clips. The axle was broken but I
could still drive home.
I haven't pulled it apart yet and probably won't for a while, since
knowing the details isn't really important at this point and I want to
be able to roll the car around. Those were good Summers axles, about
$350 a set. They have been in use for several seasons now. The
abrupt engagement of the locker is really tough on the axles and wheel
studs.
I'm not too bummed about it, other than not being able to satisfy an
occasional need for speed in the off season. I was planning on
replacing my steel wheels this Winter and I really needed to change
the rear bolt pattern from 5/8 x 4.25" to a more popular 5 bolt, so I
would have had to replace the axles anyway (something I wasn't too
thrilled about, since they were "good"). My Detroit locker is a 28
spline unit, and I'd rather not sink more money into the 28 spline
solution. I'd like to switch to a 31 spline setup. A new locker and
axles will set me back about $700.
I am considering the alternatives.. I hear good things about the Quick Trac
torque sensing differential over the locker, but I am not entirely sold yet.
I may replace the whole unit with a full floater quick change rear end.
That would be nice, but the QC rear doesn't like to be launched hard.
Stock Car Products says hard launches will be a problem (the launches
are fairly gentle compared to drag use). A complete aluminum QC setup
will run about $1700-$2100.
03 Nov 1993
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
Mustangs
On Nov 1, Scott Evans wrote:
> Has anyone tried the Kenny Brown Track Kit Plus series II? I was
> wondering if this was some kinda torque arm thang. If so, anyone have
> real life experience with the kit? We were wondering about durability
> with regard to Autoxing and also how this kit compares with the
> Grigg's Torque Arm.
and:
> His question is whether or not Anti-Dive kits really work and if
> they are worth the money. This guy is a fellow autoxer and is
> extrememly agressive behind the wheel. He is considering the
> Griggs Anti-Dive stuff.
Well, all of the easy bolt on stuff is intended to change the rear
axle lower control arm pickups, and both the Griggs design and the
Kenny Brown design are similar in that respect. They lower the pickup
point on the axle for the lower control arms by around an inch. To the
best of my knowledge, Kenny doesn't have a torque arm.
The Kenny Brown rear suspension tweaks are just a Panhard rod to add
to your existing 4-link, and the control arm relocation. Griggs sells
a couple of differnt Panhard kits, which range from street versions
intended to work along with the 4-link, to race versions strengthened
for use with the torque arm.
By and large, adding a Panhard rod to your existing 4-link is likely
to be very little win, and may be a lose. The resulting linkage will
likely bind up pretty badly in roll, and the performance benefit from
better axle location will be offset by the suspension bind. The bind
will ne worst if you are running stiff suspension bushings back there.
Most of the "street" Panhard setups are not strong enough for use with
a torque arm. They were designed to work in an environment where the
upper control arms are still present, and therefore still absorb a lot
of the lateral shock loads. When used with a torque arm or 3-link,
they may have a pretty short fatigue life, since they will be
absorbing all of the lateral loads. On the track, with sticky race
rubber, these lateral loads can get pretty astronomical. Caveat
emptor, if you intend to put together a hack like that!
Do the anti-dive kits work? Maybe. Depends on the rest of the car's
setup. The best thing I can tell you is to call up the vendor and
discuss your setup in detail with them. Bruce Griggs is at
(805)545-8202, and Kenny Brown is at (402)391-3558. But you probably
won't find them this week, since practically everyone in the industry
is at the SEMA show in Las Vegas.
If you decide to run any of this stuff, please let us know what your
setup is, and what your results are. I don't believe that anyone on
the list is running either of the setups you asked about right now.
04 Nov 1993
Dan Malek
mustangs@hpermsp.cup.hp.com
Well, I tried to stay away from this because I am too busy, but.....
>The 84 GT with CFI injection did indeed have EEC-IV control. The CFI was
>only available on automatics. The 5sp had an EEC-III controled electronic
>4V Holley 4180 carburetor. Perhaps there are self test procedures for the
>EEC-III as well?
The EEC-III was never used on an '84-'85 Mustang. You could find it
on some full size cars with a 351. Let's just say you should be glad
you don't have an EEC-III and leave it at that :-).
The '84-'85 GT with the 4 barrel have no "computer". Just the DuraSpark II
and the old style temperature controlled vacuum switches. The only
"electronic" carb was the Carter/YFB feedback toilet bowl, in one and
two barrel versions, on some trucks.
As far as a GT with CFI....well, if you say you have one....but check the
data plate to make sure it came that way from the factory. I worked for
Ford during those years (and many more), and special ordered a 5.0 HO LX.
There were two options that we don't disagree on, the 5-speed got the
old technology 4-barrel, and the automatic got the CFI. At the time
I ordered, the GT got the 5-speed, the LX got the automatic. No other
combinations.
> Brett Earl Forejt
>Hello fellas,
>
> I have both the 84 mustang with cfi, and the 85 with just a 4
>barrel, they both have computers. I have no idea what the computer on
>my 85 is for, there are no controls for the thing to run, and there were
>only 3 maybe four sensors. My fathers 84, has the computer, and it is a
>pain in the butt, he is thinking of just taking off the cri and getting
>a good holley. He as already bypassed every sensor with potentiometers
>(or replaced completely). This way, he can adjust each sensor by hand,
>in effect tuning the motor. BTW for those who may think this was bad,
>it has never run as strong, or gotten as good mileage.
The CFI uses the same basic EEC-IV technology as the SEFI. It is not
some mutant one of a kind technology. If it does not work properly,
the failures can be determined using diagnostic procedures outlined for
any EEC-IV. If you intend on fixing it yourself, you must purchase the
proper manuals and follow the procedures _exactly_. If you like
confusing the processor with do it yourself hacking, don't complain
about it being a pain in the butt. If you want a real, never ending
project, and an engine that won't ever run right again, swap the CFI
for a carb.
It is not difficult to make the CFI run very well. Mine is great, and
has required very little maintenance.
04 Nov 1993
David Gonzales (General)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
>Have you considered a 2500 stall torque converter?
My Ford Factory Truck Reference book lists some 5.0/AOD convertors with
a stock 2200 rpm stall speed (couldn't determine what the mustang
convertor is). Therefore, I really doubt if a 2500 stall convertor
would be a _big_ improvement.
A 3000-3200 rpm stall speed would get the engine up to the start of
it's max torque range on launching.
Of course, if the tires can't take it at 1600 rpm, they most certainly
won't at 3000 rpm.
Usually 'powerbraking" will hurt weight transfer and therefore
starting traction. Also it will not allow the convertor to flash up as
high as just nailing it from idle. Strange but true. The turbo guys
like to powerbrake to get the boost up before launching. It can also
help cut down on tire spin (by _reducing_ applied torque) for some cars
with big motors.
The nice thing about the AOD is that 3rd and 4th bypasses the convertor
(this is different from the way GM lockup convertors work and this
difference is also why the AOD does not need a computer to work), so
highway fuel economy would be unaffected by a higher stall convertor.
In first and second, the torque convertor works as normal.
04 Nov 1993
David Gonzales (General)
mustangs@hpermsp.cup.hp.com
>... friend's 85 and seing the duty cycle solenoid fuel bowl inlet
valves. This was a California car. Is it possible the California cars
got EEC-III?
Nope, all EEC-III applications were replaced by EEC-IV in 1984
>...At the time I ordered, the GT got the 5-speed, the LX got the
automatic. No other combinations.
I had the chance to purchase a low-mile '85 GT Automatic, so I
inspected it pretty closely. It had the CFI engine along with tubular
headers and the exhaust system looked identical to the 5-spd car. Very nice.
BTW, the CFI intake is virtually identical to the 4BBL intake, just a
2-bbl-type of bolt-pattern. Same ports and runners...
>friends told me that ...the CFI 5.0 was a less powerful "grocery-getter" V-8.
Well, sort of. The CFI 5.0 in the mustangs was an H.O. version. This
had more hp, the H.O. firing order, dual snorkel air cleaner (with
legend: 5.0 H.O. E.F.I). The full size cars got a standard 5.0 CFI engine.
Standard CFI 5.0 was rated something like 140 hp.
The '83-'85 CFI H.O. was available in the Mustang, LTD LX, Lincoln LSC,
among others.
Ratings varied from 165-185 hp. Compare that to the '83-'84 4BBL at 175
hp. Not exactly a grocery getter; but a strong performer in it's own right.
Theoretically, throttle body fuel injection (CFI) is better than
carburetion. It's just that Ford's was the same size as a two-barrel carb.
Tuned-port injection is even better still. Power is up, emissions down.
04 Nov 1993
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
On Nov 3, Dave Williams wrote:
> Wait a sec, here. I dunno whether the torque arm conversion uses a
> Panhard rod or Watts link, but it ought to keep things pretty well lined
> up. The four-link has enough slop to allow roll understeer. Everything
> being equal, you should have reduced understeer, not increased it.
> That's what happened when I changed our old A/MOD autocrosser from
> four link to torque arm+Panhard.
>
> Has the kit raised the rear roll center? Was the torque arm the only
> change you made at the time? I'm slightly confused.
It uses a Panhard. And it does keep things lined up very well.
Unfortunately, while you certainly lower the rear roll center (by
about 10 inches!), and reduce the slop that allows roll understeer,
you also reduce the "slop oversteer" that comes from the axle
displacing laterally around those very short upper arms. And the rear
spring and antiroll bar rates are suddenly about a factor of 2 too
low, since the massively lowered rear roll center completely changes
their operating environment, and they are no longer supplemented by
all the bushings binding up.
So the rear suspension, which now actually _works_ like a suspension,
but is way undersprung, hooks up. And then the front suspension's
basic understeer is the prevalent thing you'll encounter, and it's
made much worse by the low rear roll stiffness. Where you used to be
able to use the throttle to break loose the tail to battle understeer,
the hooked-up rear end will simply hang on for dear life- and just
shove the overworked fronts along, screaming, usually with the inside
front dangling about 2 inches off the ground. To solve that problem,
you either need more power (to drive around the problem), or more
spring and bar, to band-aid the problem. Ideally, you really need to
get the front roll center up above the ground, as you tune your
springs and bar.
The roll axis used to extend from the rear center, which was about 14
inches above ground, to the front center, which is about 2 inches
below ground (depending upon many things, like your ride height- these
numbers are not for everybody's setup, obviously). That steep roll
axis inclination is a recipe for understeer if there was ever one.
Now you add the torque arm, and geometrically, you sure did improve
things. But without the spring and bar change, you won't be able to
tell. Now, if you get the rear center down to say 5 inches, and the
front center up to say 2 inches above ground, you'll have an
_altogether_ better starting point for tuning. At least, you'll be
more likely to keep all 4 tires on the ground!
Most of the folks I know who have installed the torque arm have
immediately gone in search of heavier rear springs and bars, and I
know that Brian and his friends with their 3-links have done the same.
The big difference between the Mustang and your A-MOD car is that that
car was pretty well developed to start with, so the front suspension
was pretty well worked out, and you had a more advantageous
power-to-weight ratio anyway. The Mustang is a great example of the
case where the two ends of the car work equally _poorly_, so a radical
improvement to one end only is primarily going to show you how badly
the other end stinks...
Well, hell. If we _knew_ what was gonna happen, it wouldn't be research!
04 Nov 1993
hdmwi@chevron.com Doug
Scott,
Thanks! That was a fabulous answer. You even hit on one aspect I failed
to mention, the spectacular ability to lift the inside front wheel way
off the ground. I don't know how many people have seen that and immediately
asked me 'what have you done to your motor?'. They did not believe me when
claimed it was my totally imbalanced suspension. In my hasty reply I
failed to mention the spring rates I used. I am using 980 lb/in
straight rates in the front and 350 lb/in in the rear. The front bar is
factory (1.31 inch) the rear is 1 inch. I do not believe this is a good
combination, but it is better than what I started with and was all I
could get done before nationals! With these springs I still experience
way too much body roll, and as you point out the front suspension is
merely band-aided by the heavier springs. This winter's project is to
make the front suspension at least pretend to work as well as the rear...
04 Nov 1993
dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
-> I like to only make one change at a time. The torque arm was
-> installed along with sub frame connectors. The rear roll center was
-> lowered by the addition of the Griggs set up, which included a
-> panhard rod. I believe that this may be the cause of the massive
-> understeer. problem. It was NOT a subtle change!
That's downright weird. The four-link roll center is about axle height,
right? What's the roll center of the Griggs kit?
-> his torque arm is installed on a lowered car that has a stock or near
-> stock front suspension. It is even acknowleged in his sales brochure.
Shorter springs will move the front roll center down, since the angle of the
lower control arms determines roll center height. It doesn't move down much,
though, since the roll center is fairly low to begin with. With the control
arms more horizontal the roll center doesn't shift side to side as much, which
is usually a net improvement.
-> The torque arm setup
-> does not in and of itself reduce roll induced understeer. The
-> location of the panhard bar does of course affect the rear roll
-> center, which can affect induced understeer.
Absolutely. Ahhh.... wait a sec. Does the four link's roll center move
laterally in roll? I've never tried to figure it up since I usually swap
stuff over to Panhard. If the center moves, maybe the roll center shift was
favorable, while the Panhard bar's roll center is fixed?
Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
From: thomson@syr.ge.com
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993
> I was thinking of replacing all four "meats" with skinny snow tires on
> cheap, steel wheels (from a 4 cyl mustang). Some tire places, though,
> won't touch me. They say it's not safe to put a tire size not
> originally specified by Ford on the car. I promised I wouldn't try
> and redline it in fourth gear while negotiating a hairpin turn under a
> 15 ft snow drift, but they wouldn't budge.
Scrap the Idea of 4cyl Mustang wheels on your 5.0, It will not work. I have a
1988 5.0 LX. The diameter of the front brake disk & caliper setup is too large
for the 14" 4cyl Mustang wheel. I tried it. The 14" wheel fits on the back,
not on the front. As I assume you know, you can't mix the 15" stock aluminum
(sp?) wheel on the front with a 14" steel on the back (unless you like facing
the traffic behind you ;-) ).
So, what to do? I use my 5.0 in the winter in Syracuse NY (snow belt) with no
problems (even in the Blizzard last April!). I use a 205/65R15 radial snow
tire on all 4 wheels, AND (important) 250Lbs of sand in the back. This works
well enough but since the tires are still fairly wide you should approach
turns slowly. The front tires will still plow some. Have fun!
07 Dec 1993
daveb@ingres.com (David Brower)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
[ Mail bouncing problems for hpda.cup.hp.com; sorry if you've seen
this before. ]
I went to my first open track event Sunday at the brand new
Thunderhill track in Willows, CA. It was run by the Northern
California Shelby club, and our own Scott Griffith was the chief
instructor for the event, and other list-ers were there too. I'm sure
more/better reports will follow.
Willows is a not long course (1.9 mi), narrow, with a mix of corners
and hills, a pretty long straight, and a beautiful and *very* smooth
surface, since it's brand new.
The club was also out Saturday, but I didn't go. Following
instructions to be there are 7:00 for tech, and 8:00 drivers meeting,
I got there at 6:30, but could have gotten another hour of sleep. I
ran into Scott and Chucko about 7:30, and got paddock space near them.
Scott he helped me with some procedural details. It seemed like
everything started an hour late, as tech didn't start till maybe 8:00,
and the drivers meeting was at 9:00.
There were four run groups, novice, two intermediates and one expert.
Sessions for each group would be about 20 minutes of green, with hopes
for 3 runs in the day. They started about 9:30, and I was in the
third group.
I was driving my bone-stock '86 SVO in the novice group. Major
preparation was getting it running right, changing brake fluid,
mounting a fire extinguisher, and using a bungee to keep the right
seat from flopping forward under braking. I pumped my worn gen II
Comp T/A street tires to 40 front, 36 rear, on the theory that "it's
hard to overinflate them."
The run groups on either (slow and fast) extreme seemed fairly
well-behaved. The intermediate groups were less so, having incidents
that shut the track down for lengthy periods, though no one was hurt.
Unfortunately, my group followed one of these, and we spent long
periods on the grid waiting for cleanup.
My first session was extremely tentative, guessing line, judging break
points and pressure, and not sure when to try to pass even slower
people on the straight where it was allowed. The hardware ran great,
whooshing right up to 14 lbs boost, going where it was pointed, and
responding well to steering with the throttle. The software was a
shambles, though. I wasted three laps behind a car I ended up lapping
in the second session. It was clear my mind had no confidence in the
brakes, so I'd lift way early and brake gently, and then overdrive
through the turn. Many opportunities for improvement were present.
I also learned that when someone in a 427 Cobra wants to go by, you
just give them room, and expect to hear a loud noise. You need not
lift or otherwise slow down.
Scott volunteered to carry me on his second run, and this was very
enlightening. A few things were obvious: Track tires stick, stick,
stick compared to street tires. The respectable line was different
than I'd been using in some critical places. Generally, you can
commit yourself to the line and get to a limit much greater than I'd
approached in my first session. And braking can and should be much,
much, harder than I'd been willing to attempt. After hearing all of
Scott's brake stories, it was amusing to feel them in action. They
seemed pretty good and solid to me. He said they'd only warmed up
about halfway through, and complained about the rears afterward.
My naive passengers view of Scott's style: He hangs onto corners very
hard, using the rubber heavily without crossing into a slide. (The
loudest thing his car at speed is the complaint of the tires while
cornering.) He brakes strongly, and is fairly smooth and decisive on
steering and throttle input. In some places I wondered if some of his
braking to set the car on entry was as smooth as would be best (entry
to 4, entry to 6, entry to 9). On the other hand, he was carrying
lots of speed into these places, and his jabs were decisive and
effective.
After lunch, a session, and another long "clean up the track" break, I
went out with my own passenger. (Brett Taylor, a friend from work,
who once did some wrenching on Phil Hill's car collection). After
warming up a bit, we got serious, passing a new Mustang Cobra and a GT
that were slowing us down on the third lap. I started to drive much
harder, finding the line, when another SVO caught up. Figuring he
knew what he was doing, I let him by. We followed him and stayed
together for the rest of the session, making the tires squeal, both
blowing puffs out the exhaust on upshifts. IMO, neither of us was
really braking hard enough, and neither had the nerve to wind it out
all the way down the main straight, hitting maybe 105 or so, more
often 95-100. At the end, we ran into some traffic, lapped one car,
and got behind another 427 Cobra that was cruising around. The first
SVO got by him with two laps to go, but I wasn't close enough, and he
wouldn't let me by. *SIGH*, I both lost contact and finished at
8/10ths. It's unnerving to be wondering if you're going to rear-end a
multi-bizillion dollar Cobra when you want to be testing your braking
limits. One of the other listers in a 5.0 caught me in the last lap
or two, with Scott as a passenger, but I want to believe it was that
damn Cobra traffic. :-)
Brett got some splits, and said later, "there was one lap where you
really held the pedal down going into one, and I was wondering when
you were going to brake, or it was going to be exciting." That must
have been the fast lap, and I was learning :-).
lap time speed comments
1 2:10.36 52.4 warm up
2 1:59.94 57.0 behind traffic
3 1:59.63 57.1 behind traffic
4 1:44.17 65.6 first clear lap
5 1:42.94 66.4 let other SVO by.
6 1:40.92 67.7 good lap closing in.
7 1:44.45 65.4 into traffic, lapped one car.
8 1:43.28 66.2 other SVO by 427 Cobra.
9 1:43.99 65.7 stuck behind 427 Cobra!!!
Things were improving rapidly in the clear, and slow traffic is as bad
....
1:35s, presumably on track tires, so I didn't feel that far off the
pace doing 1:41.9 as a novice.
My hot lap description: long straight into sweeping uphill left hander
#1. Hold throttle down as long as you dare and brake heavily to make
the entry, drifting wide on exit, accelerating in 4th. Brake enough
to downshift into 3rd for #2, a sluggish left hand 180 with very late
apex. Exit is 1/2 way, accelerate in 3rd drifting back to the left;
brake completely before the crest of the hill, then turn into #3, an
off camber right hander. Accelerate gently in 3rd, apexing very late,
then hard straight to the entry to left turn #4, touching brakes to
set the car set for entry. Blast strong down the dip and up the steep
hill, pounding the brakes and shifting down to second. Take the 90
degree #5 cresting the hill *very early*, clipping the berm on the
inside. End up on the outside, which is the inside of the following
off-camber sweeping right 5a. Shift up to third on the down hill.
(Cars with gobs of torque might stay in 3rd cresting 5 rather than
down shifting; shifting back up to 3rd after the turn is awkward.)
Accelerate around 5a drifting left a little wide, and apexing very very
late. Step on the brakes to set for left hand bend #6, which is
important to get through correctly. The stretch from 6 around the
gentle left #7 is the second fastest part of the track, and you want
to get well into 4th before pounding the brakes and going back down to
second for 8/8a, a left hand U turn taken as one with a very late
apex. Shift up to third, touch brakes to set the car, and brush the
berm late on right hand #9, entering the main straight.
There were three places I'd wondered if Scott's braking style was
best: 4, 6, and 9. I was trail-braking them, but can't say that's a
great idea compared to his stronger inputs. I wasn't very fast going
in, and he was, and so needed to slow more.
I needed laps at speed to explore these points, but alas, the jig was
up, and the session was over. I had to leave to get home to the
family, and missed my potential third session. Looking at the time,
and the time between sessions, I wasn't sure I'd have gotten another
in before dark anyway.
Conclusions:
- An SVO is a darned entertaining track car right out of the box.
Maybe more so, IMHO, than a 5.0 because you don't _need_ to do as
much development work. It can certainly keep up with faster cars
that are driven without commitment. I didn't kill my brakes, but
that's mostly because I was chicken.
- The only "mod" I feel the need to make is different wheels/tires for
sports use (track or autox). Street tires are slow, and driving
slow enough to really save them isn't much fun (my first session).
- Counterclockwise tracks are good to run street tires on, because you
even out the wear you do taking on- and off-ramps. Mine came out
fine, and didn't get killed.
- This particular event wasn't tremendously satisfying because of the
long delays between sessions, and because I had to leave early.
Part of the delays were silly driving, but the flaggers and safety
crews weren't particularly on the ball either. It wouldn't have
hurt if I'd known earlier the format of the event (20 minute
sessions.) For some reason, I'd thought it would be one session of
like a full hour or 90 minutes for each group, and planned on being
back earlier. This was obviously brain-dead on my part.
- Make sure you call home if you're going to be late :-(.
- Think about getting a car phone :-( :-(.
- Do it again? Sure, if I can find the tire budget.
Thanks to Scott and Walt for encouraging me to come out, and making it
fun and painless to go.
07 Dec 1993
jfletch@netcom.com (Jay Fletcher)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
Forwarded message:
Troy Wecker:
>> I can't feel an
>> increase in power but it does seem to knock (predetonate) now.
>> >[ After removing air intake silencer. ]
Brian St. Denis:
> >Maybe you are running a little lean due to increased air flow per rpm.
> >Hopefully the EEC-IV will compensate after a while.
>
It's more likely that the wooshing noise was just masking the knock
that has been there all along.
Bob Pitas:
> Would it be helpful for Troy to disconnect the battery for a while?
> I get the impression that it would force the EEC-IV to learn faster,
> since it wouldn't have any history to compare to...
Probst says the time constant for the EEC-IV learning curve is about
five minutes during closed-loop operation. My own experience would
lead me to believe it is longer though. Every good source I've found
recommends AGAINST cutting power to solve problems.
Bob Pitas on burning 87 octane gas:
> And for some reason it holds a
> cold idle better, even though I adjusted the idle back down after
> retiming it...
I've noticed this too. I have no idea why. I also seem to get better
milage, but that could be because I usually burn it only on long
trips when I know I wont be pushing the engine hard.
Brian St. Denis:
> >I had assumed that you want the lowest octane gas (fastest burning) that you
> >can get, without pinging. Is this not true?
Lower octane gas does burn faster, and that can be an advantage for fuel
economy (efficiency). Ideally, you'd like to burn all of the fuel
instantly at just past top dead center.
Bob Pitas:
> Gee, I kinda think of it the other way around - you want the highest initial
> timing you can manage without pinging on the gas you can afford! :^)
> Seriously, I know there's no inherent performance advantage to higher octane
> gas, other than being able to advance the timing, but I don't think there's
> any performance advantage to lower octane gas either. From what I understand,
> the octane level doesn't effect the energy contained in a unit of fuel,
> just at what temperature that energy is released. It just stops pre-ignition.
Higher octane gas allows you to run a higher compression ratio without
pre-ignition. Higher compression ratios are thermodynamically more
efficient which results in more power from the same amount of fuel.
07 Dec 1993
bkelley@pms706.pms.ford.com (Brian Kelley)
mustangs%hpda.cup.hp.com@cup.hp.com
Recently, I found my Master todo list for the Capri from last season. While
working on the car, I mostly ignored this list because it was too long and
depressing (and too high level). My friends scoffed at the list when they
looked at it.. I think I posted this to the Mustangs list around last Spring.
This represents what I did on the car between May and August and does not
include previous work. These things almost always take more time than you
plan. In retrospect, it really was a horrendous amount of work and this is
still a high level list. The X's indicate completed tasks.
There is nothing like looking at the car and thinking to yourself "Wow, I'm
really getting close!" And then roughly estimating that you only have another
200 or so more hours to go (and the really sick part is that _is_, getting
close :-)
X relocate front control arms, reinforce K-member
X new rear springs (form pigtail)
new steering shaft
rack milling
X P/S leaks
X P/S pump replacement
Oil cooler
New 5 lug rotors
Camber/caster plates
New struts
X Seat back brace
X MSD ignition
X MSD Distributor
X Good plug wires & loom
Accusump?
X Fabricate windage tray, crank scraper, oil pan
New fan
X Facia for hood
X hood Dzus fasteners
Lexan for windows
X Rear hatch
X Remove door bars, gut doors
X Remove all glass (except windshield; install new seal)
X Relocate battery
sub-frame connectors?
X Fabricate G-load brace
X New starter
X Build new H-pipe, crossover, Flowmasters, kickdowns
X Build new engine, J302 heads, SVO headers
X Wrap headers (this took 3.5-4.0 hours with the headers out)
X Modify headers for chassis clearance
X Clearance bellhousing for headers
X New dbl pumper carb?
X Water pump?
X 4 core radiator
X Electric fuel pump, regulator
X re-plumb brake lines
X re-plumb fuel lines
Machine brass steering rack bushing
X Re-wire electrical, build control panel, remove old harness
X Reinforce floor pans
X Weld 11 point cage
X Build dash
X + good MSD compat tach
+ Speedo
X + Oil pressure ( & warning light )
+ Oil temp
X + Water temp
X + Vacuum
X Vacuum reserve can
X Rebuild rear end? (new seal - fix leak)
X New rear end bearings?
Cut off 4 link mounts from rear
X Build 3 link/rear suspension supports
X Build panhard
Air cleaner housing
Clearance hood for air cleaner
X Harness
X Paint trans
X Paint brake booster
X Paint engine compartment, remove all junk and fasteners
Paint cage
X Paint bare interior and white floor pan
X Paint underbody
Paint exterior
Solid engine mounts
X New front wheels
X New tires
Trailer hitch
Trailer
Better steering wheel
X Clutch, flywheel
X Drive shaft length
X New U-joints
Radiator bracing
X Enlarge accel pedal
Driveshaft hoops
x Catch tanks?
x Rear disk brakes
X Hit self in side of head with 3 foot pipe while installing U-joint
07 Dec 1993
bkelley@pms706.pms.ford.com (Brian Kelley)
mustangs%hpda.cup.hp.com@cup.hp.com
This is my '94 Todo list. I expect to have this stuff done by Spring.
I am not touching the engine this year. I am just going to complete
the tuning on my current engine (which was only begun). I still need to
buy a tow vehicle and trailer. '95 will be the year of the Engine From
Hell.
I expect this off season to be a relaxing contrast to the crazy pace
I had to set earlier this year.
New Wheels
Switch to 5 bolt front rotors
New Headers and wrap (return old to fix ground clearance probs)
New engine fan
Replace rear axles and go to larger Timken bearings (housing ends)
Go to 31 or 33 spline Detroit Locker?
Or just replace rear with QC rear end?
Replace rear lower control arms with radius rods
Replace rear springs and shocks with coilovers
Adjustable rear roll bar
Good steering wheel
Rear rotors, calipers and brackets
Replace fuel line with braided SS
Larger feed lines from tank?
Paint cage
Paint selected interior
re-wire for neatness and reliability
Paint exterior
Flare fenders
Better facia
Air dam
Brake ducts and nozzles
Oil cooler
Oil temp gauge
Relocate tach
Accusump?
Hood bump for air cleaner clearance
Better hood pin arrangement
Machine bronze steering rack snubber
Install rear hatch
Rear and side windows (Lexan)
Good shifter rods?
Air cleaner box, cowl induction
underdrive pulleys
Radiator catch tank
P/S catch tank
Diff and trans catch tanks
Front suspension - SLA
New K-member
Spindles
Coilovers
Upper and lower control arms
Rod ends
Brakes?
If not SLA:
Additional front chassis structure
New struts
Caster plates
Modify spindles
Mill rack
Solid rack bushings
U joint for steering shaft
08 Dec 1993
OADDAB@STDVAX.GSFC.NASA.GOV (DIRK BROER)
mustang@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
Guys,
I finally had a chance to read some of the EEC-IV Book (BTW thanks Ken -
another satisfied customer - again). In particular I was looking to either
support or rebuff the statement the motor generally runs open loop and
doesn't used the oxygen sensor.
Well after my initial reading I found the statement to be true but
misleading.
After the motor warms up - it uses the oxygen sensor to calibrate the air/
fuel ratio to 14.7:1. Once it finds a setting that gives this ratio - it
switches to open loop - however it still monitors the HUGO (or oxygen
sensor) to insure that the engine doesn't go out of "calibration". If it
does it goes back to closed loop for adjustements.
From this I would suspect that if your engine was in good running order -
and not too far from stock - the car/engine would pass the sniffer test -
even if they used a chassis dyno.
One thing that wasn't clear was if the WOT mode was modified by what the
computer "learned" from the oxygen sensor at warm idle/warm part throttle.
If not - it would seem that there might be some benifit in modifing the WOT
lookup tables on a highly modified engine. The book suggest that the
engine's power is not very sensitive to minute adjustments in air/fuel
ratio - but I suspect ignition timing may be a different story.
One question - the book keeps talking about a KO or Knock sensor - I
thought the mustang's didn't have one. The book isn't all that clear on
what sensor / control was used on what year. So what's the scoop?
BTW '93 and later seem to have a "push start mode" basically if engine
rpm is very low and the key is on it will allow the engine to start.
08 Dec 1993
andrem@pyramid.com (Andre Molyneux)
mustang@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
> I finally had a chance to read some of the EEC-IV Book (BTW thanks Ken -
> another satisfied customer - again). In particular I was looking to either
> support or rebuff the statement the motor generally runs open loop and
> doesn't used the oxygen sensor.
This book has been well worth the money. I now actually understand a
fair amount of the theory behind emissions control, which seemed like
black magic before.
> Well after my initial reading I found the statement to be true but
> misleading.
>
> After the motor warms up - it uses the oxygen sensor to calibrate the air/
> fuel ratio to 14.7:1. Once it finds a setting that gives this ratio - it
> switches to open loop - however it still monitors the HUGO (or oxygen
> sensor) to insure that the engine doesn't go out of "calibration". If it
> does it goes back to closed loop for adjustements.
>-- End of excerpt from DIRK BROER
I haven't gotten to this portion of the book yet, but I would hazard
a guess that it's too keep oscillations out of the system. From what
work I did with feedback control systems in college, a closed-loop
system is constantly making adjustments, and you'll see small variations
in the output. Finding a good operating point and only making adjustments
if the output varies more than a certain percentage makes sense.
08 Dec 1993
Dan Malek
>I finally had a chance to read some of the EEC-IV Book (BTW thanks Ken -
>another satisfied customer - again). In particular I was looking to either
>support or rebuff the statement the motor generally runs open loop and
>doesn't used the oxygen sensor.
>Well after my initial reading I found the statement to be true but
>misleading.
Don't believe everything you read. Good research involves information
from multiple sources, including your own experimentation.
>After the motor warms up - it uses the oxygen sensor to calibrate the air/
>fuel ratio to 14.7:1. Once it finds a setting that gives this ratio - it
>switches to open loop - however it still monitors the HUGO (or oxygen
>sensor) to insure that the engine doesn't go out of "calibration". If it
>does it goes back to closed loop for adjustements.
The EEC-IV runs in closed loop as much as possible. Any kind of part
throttle cruise, from the time you stop accelerating to the time you
decelerate, in any gear, it is running closed loop. The problem at idle
is that the air flow is very low and small absolute changes appear as
very large relative changes. This, coupled with the O2 sensor integrating
circuits cause a closed loop control to get into uncontrolled oscillations.
Also, due to the low air velocity, the idle is usually run on the rich
side, beyond the very narrow range of the O2 sensor. The EEC-IV has
preprogrammed tables for open loop idle, which are compensated to a
certain degree by the information it has gathered during closed loop
operation. At idle and WOT, the O2 is sampled to make sure the engine
is running on the rich side. At WOT this is done to make sure the
engine is not trying to self destruct by running lean. Both fuel flow
and ignition timing are adjusted to keep the engine running properly.
If any of this gets out of range, the EEC-IV will post an error code.
I don't know how your book describes the HUGO, but this is the common
name for a very expensive, wider range O2 sensor. Based upon the price
of replacements from Ford (and data I have collected on EEC-IV engines),
these are not used. Only the narrow range HO2S parts are used.
>From this I would suspect that if your engine was in good running order -
>and not too far from stock - the car/engine would pass the sniffer test -
>even if they used a chassis dyno.
>One thing that wasn't clear was if the WOT mode was modified by what the
>computer "learned" from the oxygen sensor at warm idle/warm part throttle.
>If not - it would seem that there might be some benifit in modifing the WOT
>lookup tables on a highly modified engine. The book suggest that the
>engine's power is not very sensitive to minute adjustments in air/fuel
>ratio - but I suspect ignition timing may be a different story.
From dyno testing, I can say the engine is very sensitive to ignition
timing and AFR, among other things. Cruising at 70 MPH is not a big deal,
but getting it right at peak torque is a big deal. The EEC-IV knows
what the torque and horsepower curves are for the engine, and adjusts
the AFR accordingly. Does the book say that? It should. There is
more than just a properly calibrated MAF involved in making sure the
injectors are delivering the proper amount of fuel at a given engine
load, rpm, air/engine temperature, atmospheric pressure, etc. Making
modifications to an engine that move the torque/HP curves will probably
get you more power, but without detailed electronics changes you won't
get maximum power.
>One question - the book keeps talking about a KO or Knock sensor - I
>thought the mustang's didn't have one. The book isn't all that clear on
>what sensor / control was used on what year. So what's the scoop?
Be careful how you group "Mustangs". The 5.0 does not have a knock
sensor, but the 2.3L and Turbo do have them. Typically, all 4-cyl engines
have them, and the V8s don't, but it depends upon the application.
>BTW '93 and later seem to have a "push start mode" basically if engine
>rpm is very low and the key is on it will allow the engine to start.
Again, be careful here. The push start mode depends upon the engine
and electronics application. It has been available for many years on
some vehicles.
08 Dec 1993
koch@green.rtsg.mot.com (Clifton Koch)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
Skod asked about when magnetic guages were first put into Mustangs. The
shop manual for my '88 indicates that the gauges are magnetic. I have not
actually seen this with my own eyes, but it's probably true.
Bummer. I had hoped the regulator was the cause of my gauge woes. Now I have
to figure out some other way to get at least marginally accurate gauges...
09 Dec 1993
jfletch@netcom.com (Jay Fletcher)
The SFC's from GW should have come with an instruction sheet if you
ordered directly from GW.
The instructions I received with my set indicated that the angle
brackets should be welded between the rear of the front subframes
and the subframe connectors. The long part of the bracket is welded
on its three sides to the flat underside of the subframe. The short
side of the angle is welded on one of it sides to the SFC. It looks
like this along the longitudinal axis of the car.
| | <- subframe
--------
--- -------- <- angle bracket
/ \ |
| ||
\ / <- SFC
---
The trapezoidal pieces are designed to work as gussets between the
rear bulkhead where the ends of the SFCs attach in back, the rear
subframes, and the SFCs themselves. You will have to move the fuel
and brake hard lines on the passenger side to install that one.
It would look like this from below the car.
| |
| | <- rear subframe
| |
| |----------------- <- bulkhead
| | | |
| | | |
| |-------|
| | ^ | | < rear of SFC
|
|--- gusset goes here
Also, you should push the SFC's up as far as they will go for
installation. They should hug the floor pan very well.
09 Dec 1993
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
> These are general, theoretical questions about fuel injectors:
Well, you asked 'em in the Mustangs group, so you're likely to get
somewhat Mustang-colored answers.
> (1a) Is a fuel injector just a nozzle which is attached to an
> electrically controlled valve which is attached to a source of fuel
> which is under sufficient pressure to allow fuel to be squirted out, or
> (1b) is a fuel injector the same as 1a except that it also has
> something, perhaps a solenoid driven plunger, to squirt out fuel?
1a. The injector is essentially an electrically controlled valve. It's
a bit more complex than that, in that the "plunger" (more correctly
called the pintle) in the valve is extended through the orifice in the
injector to help create a finely atomized cone of fuel droplets,
rather than a stream, but the gist of it is that it is a valve. It is
fed pressurized fuel from the fuel rail, and does not do any pumping
on its own. In the case of the EFI Mustangs, the fuel pump is in the
takn, and the entire fuel feed system is run at the rail pressure,
which is about 40 PSI.
> (2) Is there anything in the design of a fuel injector which will harm
> the injector if one attempts to operate it when the fuel line is dry
> and the attempt lasts no longer than a handful of normal starts?
Not in the short haul. The injectors are actually cooled to some
extent by the fuel, so one can imagine causing them indigestion by
running them dry at high duty cycles over an extended period. But that
period is likely to be hours rather than seconds. Additionally, the
EEC-IV won't leave them on at 100% duty cycle in any case, even while
attempting to crank with no fuel pressure. It always fires the
injectors in synchronization with the crank rotation. And if it
doesn't detect a start after about 20 seconds of cranking, it will
reduce the injector periods even further (to prevent flooding in case
the problem is non-fuel-related).
> (3) Is there a correct sequence in which power to the injectors should
> be shut off before or after power is shut off to other components or
> subsystems of a fuel injected engine, eg fuel pump, lights, computer,
> radio, etc? I know all that should be done correctly by the
> computer(s), but if there is a sequence what is it?
Nope. When you want combustion to stop, stop firing the injectors.
Things will then stop posthaste. The fuel rail in the Mustang tends to
stay up near operating pressure even with the pump off, and if the
pump's still on the rfuel pressure regulator will adapt to the
cessation of flow through the injectors. On a restart, the EEC-IV
pre-runs the pump after key-on and before the starter is engaged to
assure that the fuel rail is at operating pressure, and then runs the
pump continuously after the engine is started.
Now, there is one phenomenon that can wreak havoc with the EFI
Mustang's fuel system, and that is running the fuel tank dry for
extended periods (more than perhaps a minute or two). Most people who
haven't played with their pump aren't aware of this, but the pump is
in fact cooled and lubricated by the fuel. The pump runs fully
immersed in the fuel in the tank. Additionally, the return line from
the shunt-type fuel pressure regulator is directed over the pump
motor, so that even when the tank is low a stream of fuel is available
for cooling. If you run the tank dry, the pump is up out of the
cooling fuel bath, and the return stream ceases as well. This will
allow the poor thing to heat up pretty quickly.
Running it dry for long enough to determine that you're out of fuel,
and then again for long enough to re-prime the injectors (which is
essentially instantaneous and happens during the pre-run interval) and
restart after the tank is filled, should cause no problem. But letting
the thing grind along dry for five minutes at a stretch will certainly
kill it.
09 Dec 1993
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
mustang@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
> One of my plans was to install SFC - and per good comments on the list I
> got the Global West ones.
>
> These came with 4 gussets - two of them angled and 2 of them triangular (
> actually more like a trapazoid).The other
> gussets seem to go between the bar and the floor of the car. Are these
> really needed? It seems the floor is very weak at this point and I suspect
> more problems than any stiffening. The point of the weld would be right in
> front of the back seats. If I don't use the gussets I think I can get the
> SFC up higher in the car - for more ground clearance. Should I do this and
> maybe trim the gussets?
The gussets should not control how far up within the car the SFCs fit.
They are intended to be used at the rear attachment point, which
without them would be a simple butt weld against the forward face of
the lower rear control arm torque box. These gussets are supposed to be
fitted between the side of the tube and the forward extension of the
box, forward and inboard of the rear mount point. They are pretty
close to the right shape- they just required very minor trimming and
hammer forming for installation. These gussets contribute very greatly
to the torsional rigidity that the SFCs help provide, and should not
be left out.
What makes those subframe connectors work so well is the very large
weld area. A tthe frint end, the stresses are distributed over the
large area of those angle brackets. If all the stresses were fed
through the small butt weld alone at the rear, strength and durability
would suffer.
If you wanted to do some additional stiffening, you could run some
small tubular extensions across the front seat mount bolts- several
folks here have done that.
They used to include a nice drawing showing the application of those
gussets. Did they stop doing that?
10 Dec 1993
OADDAB@STDVAX.GSFC.NASA.GOV (DIRK BROER)
mustang@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
Hey guys,
This may have some implications so you may want to read this expecially
those with lower milage mustangs.
For those of you who don't know - My '90 stang (with 50K miles) is being
worked on do to a slight off road excursion. The body work is done (needed
new radiator support and front bumper cover) and now I'm in the midst of
welding in subframe connectors (Global West's).
After some discussion with members on this list and with the person doing
the frame and body work (a friend - who lets me help esp. with the SFC's) I
have some real concerns.
The bodyman asserted that the rocker panels (the area of stiffened sheet
metal that connects the rear frame to the front frame) is much too weak for
the car. He pointed out that the lower rail on the car was once straight (
I'm talking about the lower edge that is tack welded together ) and
probably came from the dealer still straight. He said normal driving
eventually caused the warping of the sheet metal. Looking down this rail I
can see plenty of bows in it. The welds seem to be in place but the areas
between the welds seem slightly bowed outwards. He further asserted that
if the frame was solidly welded from the factory - that means all seams had
a continuous bead - I probably wouldn't need SFC's. He also suggested that
if anyone seriously raced the car - especially in a class that limited
modifications - that good prep would mean welding everything up.
After re-reading skod's "How to build a Perfect Mustang" I came accross
skods mentioning that on his car he actually popped some of the welds.
Could we be talking about the same welds? If not it still points to a
serious build problem (IMHO).
So basically:
If the rocker panels came from the factory straight and If the rocker panels
show major stress damage on my mustang (never road raced) and If the rocker
panel welds actually broke on skods car (skod can you confirm ?)
Then to prevent any damage on _ANY_ mustang you should at least have SFC's
installed. And perhaps this holds for '94 mustangs as well.
Basically what I'm suggesting is the construction of the mustang is not
strong enough - for any application.
For those who are wondering - the rocker panels themselves are straight as
an arrow - the weld seam on the bottom of the rocker is what is not
straight ( cut away of the rocker panel looking from front ):
| | Rocker panel
|__ __|
|| <- Area of spot welds ( this is the part that is not straight )
||
Furthermore the body man suggest that the spot welds are not in the optimum
place. Any tensil loads on the weld would result in the Rocker panel
bending:
| | Rocker panel
|__ __|
\ / <- Area of spot welds ( )
| |
His question was why Ford didn't spend the money and do a complete seam
weld all the way down and perhaps make a panel that was closer to a boxed
frame:
| |
|_____|
In conclusion:
Some of the stuff the bodyman said made sense. I honestly don't know if
the rocker panel weld area was ever perfectly straight. If you have a low
milage car - and your rocker panels are straight - I would highly recommend
SFC for the long term regidity of your car. At the very least keep an eye
on this list for differing opionions on this.
If you haven't been able to guess by now - this is the first time I have
spent long hours under the car looking at the construction of the chassis.
(nothing but normal maintainance up till now) I'm impressed with Ford's
motors - but not so impressed with the chassis - In fact I guess I real
uncomfortable with the chassis - hence the SFC's and the roll cage in
January. I'm not one that is big on selling cars - I expect the car I buy
to got 200K + miles with no wear out problems from the engine / drive train
and chassis. I expect a few dings / dents - even some rust / the paint to
fade / and the interior to wear out. Yes I realize the engine and
drivetrain - inculding suspension tends to wear - but thats expected wear
and maintainable wear.
What do you think?
10 Dec 1993
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
On Dec 10, Dirk Broer wrote:
> The bodyman asserted that the rocker panels (the area of stiffened sheet
> metal that connects the rear frame to the front frame) is much too weak for
> the car. He pointed out that the lower rail on the car was once straight (
> I'm talking about the lower edge that is tack welded together ) and
> probably came from the dealer still straight. He said normal driving
> eventually caused the warping of the sheet metal. Looking down this rail I
> can see plenty of bows in it. The welds seem to be in place but the areas
> between the welds seem slightly bowed outwards. He further asserted that
> if the frame was solidly welded from the factory - that means all seams had
> a continuous bead - I probably wouldn't need SFC's. He also suggested that
> if anyone seriously raced the car - especially in a class that limited
> modifications - that good prep would mean welding everything up.
I can understand your concerns here, but I think that you're
overreacting maybe just a bit. Without question, this is an imperfect
area. However, you bought a mass-produced American unibody car, and
the fact is that _any_ such car is gonna be spot-welded stamped steel.
If the Mustang was fully seam welded from the factory (which I highly
doubt is even a viable process regardless of cost), you'd have paid
somewhere between a factor of 2 and 5 more for it.
The Mustang's spot-welded tub probably shows signs of warping and some
distortion in this area even as it is welded on the assembly line. The
stampings themselves come from tooling that is fully amortized out,
and probably have tolerances of 1/8". So the spot-welding process is
also the final forming process- the electrodes pinch the layers
together to take up the last bits of tolerance. In short, if you don't
like the way the rocker seams look, then do yourself a favor and
_never_ take the rear interior trim panels out. Then you'd see the
tolerance stackup in the doublers back by the C-pillars and rear shock
towers. It ain't pretty, but then you're not supposed to look at it.
In any case, yes, there's some built-in distortion there. Drive it
some, and it will show some more distortion as the tub takes a set and
all the manufacturing tolerances slowly equalize out. Jack the car up
with the stock jack under one of the stock jack points, and you get a
bit more distortion. Hit something, and you'll certainly get more- the
unibody will absorb stresses more or less equally throughout from such
a load. Launch the car off the Corkscrew at Laguna Seca with a
bootfull of throttle and sticky tires a few times, and you'll
_certainly_ get more- and maybe pop a few welds. The tub will develop
ripples around the spot welds in the most highly stressed areas as
loads are fed into the structure. The bigger the load, the bigger the
ripples. It's a fact of life.
Ford has designed the tub to be just strong enough to last 100K miles
or more in the normal driving style that 95% of the customers for the
car will use. The Mustang's tub is just great as a grocerygetter, and
I assure you that Ford doesn't put in even as many as one more spot
weld than is absolutely necessary to make sure that the car will last
in that use. Time is money on the assembly line, and they have putting
"just enough" in down to a fine art. We reap the benefits every time
we look at the window sticker.
Now for folks like a lot of us on this list, pulling one-quarter G
leaving the grocery store is _not_ what we had in mind. Ford didn't
build this car for us, and I'm glad. If they did, we couldn't afford
it. So we have to do the legwork, and reinforce the bits that we're
going to beat up on. I don't have a problem with that at all- I've
come to realize that the car was not designed to be a race car when I
bought it. Fact is that it's amazingly good as one, despite that. But
the tub suffers, and needs some help.
> After re-reading skod's "How to build a Perfect Mustang" I came accross
> skods mentioning that on his car he actually popped some of the welds.
> Could we be talking about the same welds? If not it still points to a
> serious build problem (IMHO).
Nope. I've popped a bunch of welds, and had a hell of a good time doing
it. And the car's lasted 100K miles of how _I_ wanted to use it. I
don't agree that there's a build problem, not at all. Once I started
tweaking the tub, I realized that I was asking more of it than it
could give, and began reinforcing it. That realization is one of the
reasons I wrote the "Perfect Pony" article, frankly. I wanted to let
people know how the tub would react when you ask too much, and what to
do about it ahead of time. So stiffen up your tub in good health, and
have fun with the car!
> Then to prevent any damage on _ANY_ mustang you should at least have SFC's
> installed. And perhaps this holds for '94 mustangs as well.
I can't argue that. They pay huge dividends in handling _and_
longevity of the tub, assuming that you're a performance-oriented
person. Roughly 75% of they buyers of these cars _aren't_.
> Basically what I'm suggesting is the construction of the mustang is not
> strong enough - for any application.
Wrong. It's just fine for the 4-cylinder, the boatanchor 6, and
getting groceries. Which is what the vast majority of these cars are
used for. Remember, roughly 80% of these cars will go to their final
date with the crusher with the original brake pads, spark plugs,
coolant, and fan belt in place... And they'll never have experienced
more than 1/2 g of acceleration in any direction, except maybe for
that one time Aunt Millie lost the brake pedal and rearended the pizza
delivery boy on Main Street. Hate it as much as we want, the reality
is that we performance guys are outside the envelope. Luckily, the
...
putting the stuff on, to boot!
> For those who are wondering - the rocker panels themselves are straight as
> an arrow - the weld seam on the bottom of the rocker is what is not
> straight ( cut away of the rocker panel looking from front ):
>
> | | Rocker panel
> |__ __|
> || <- Area of spot welds ( this is the part that is not straight )
> ||
The area you indicate is where the panels distort slightly as they are
clamped together by the tooling for welding. I hate to use a hackneyed
dealer phase here, but "they're all that way"- except perhaps for some
of the 1979-82 cars, back when the tooling was newer and the
tolerances a bit tighter.
> Furthermore the body man suggest that the spot welds are not in the optimum
> place. Any tensil loads on the weld would result in the Rocker panel
> bending:
>
> | | Rocker panel
> |__ __|
> \ / <- Area of spot welds ( )
> | |
By design, actually. This allows some compliance, so that the
structure will crumple progressively when you _really_ stuff it,
absorbing lots of energy as it dies. A perfectly rigid tubular frame
would be great for us trackies, but would kill a lot of Aunt Millies
when it rigidly transferred all the forces in a pizza-truck impact to
her 1979-spec 3-point belt. The Ford engineers have to balance
rigidity versus safety versus long-term reliability versus cost, and
they've actually managed to remember that cost is important to
someone. They've really done pretty well.
The easiest way to create more distortion in this area is to put large
torsional loads along the long axis of the tub, as in high-performance
cornering. The SFCs help absorb these loads, and will prevent much
additional spreading there.
> His question was why Ford didn't spend the money and do a complete seam
> weld all the way down and perhaps make a panel that was closer to a boxed
> frame:
Money. If you did that, you'd need 2 operations to join the bellypan
to the rocker, instead of tacking it for rough assembly and then
robotically finish spotting it as a single pass. It'd be even more
rigid if it was tubular, and triangulatd, but then we'd be paying NSX
prices.
> In conclusion:
> Some of the stuff the bodyman said made sense. I honestly don't know if
> the rocker panel weld area was ever perfectly straight. If you have a low
> milage car - and your rocker panels are straight - I would highly recommend
> SFC for the long term regidity of your car. At the very least keep an eye
> on this list for differing opionions on this.
No argument- they are a cheap and very functional enhancement, and
help the tub do its job.
> If you haven't been able to guess by now - this is the first time I have
> spent long hours under the car looking at the construction of the chassis.
> (nothing but normal maintainance up till now) I'm impressed with Ford's
> motors - but not so impressed with the chassis - In fact I guess I real
> uncomfortable with the chassis - hence the SFC's and the roll cage in
> January.
Well, I've always held that if you wanna run it like a race car, you
gotta maintain it like a race car. Which, I claim, is why my poor old
pony is still alive and kicking. The chassis will last, but if you
want to do roadracing, or serious strip work, you'll need to beef it
up- as you now know. When you get the interior out to do your cage,
you'll see more areas that work just fine for grocerygetting, but need
help for performance use. So beef 'em up!
Racing has always been about using the vehicle outside the envelope.
Shoot, even if Ford had produced a factory race car, I'd find a way to
break it...
Hope this helps. The long and short of it is that IMHO you didn't buy
the wrong car.
10 Dec 1993
wyvern!neptune!calvin@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com (Calvin Sanders)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
>The bodyman asserted that the rocker panels (the area of stiffened sheet
>metal that connects the rear frame to the front frame) is much too weak for
>the car. He pointed out that the lower rail on the car was once straight (
>I'm talking about the lower edge that is tack welded together ) and
>probably came from the dealer still straight. He said normal driving
>eventually caused the warping of the sheet metal. Looking down this rail I
>can see plenty of bows in it. The welds seem to be in place but the areas
>between the welds seem slightly bowed outwards. He further asserted that
>if the frame was solidly welded from the factory - that means all seams had
>a continuous bead - I probably wouldn't need SFC's. He also suggested that
>if anyone seriously raced the car - especially in a class that limited
>modifications - that good prep would mean welding everything up.
This is one of those basic problems with production lines. Clamped spot
welds are cheap and easy to do by machines. Welding that entire seam would
cost Ford maybe 10 times as much or more. 99% of the cars comming down
the lines only get routine street duty and then are replaced at 100K miles.
this is fine for those cars. For us performance enthusiasts that is why
things like the SFC's are made.
>After re-reading skod's "How to build a Perfect Mustang" I came accross
>skods mentioning that on his car he actually popped some of the welds.
>Could we be talking about the same welds? If not it still points to a
>serious build problem (IMHO).
Back in the old days when we raced a unibody car one of the first things
we did was disassemble the car and weld up most of the important seams.
My '70 road race Mustang is all welded up. Today in SS type classes this
is not a legal mod so we subtely go along and increase the number of
spot welds wherever we think we can get away with it.
>Then to prevent any damage on _ANY_ mustang you should at least have SFC's
>installed. And perhaps this holds for '94 mustangs as well.
It is probably a good idea for a car you intend to just street drive
for >100K miles.
>Basically what I'm suggesting is the construction of the mustang is not
>strong enough - for any application.
They are fairly well designed. Their longevity is pretty good considering
everything. If the mustang bothers you look under a Taurus or Tempo, you
may never want to ride in one. They are actually fairly safe and well
designed cars, but they are not cars that will last forever like a '64
Galaxie 500 will (at least the chassis will).
>His question was why Ford didn't spend the money and do a complete seam
>weld all the way down and perhaps make a panel that was closer to a boxed
>frame:
See above about production lines.
>In conclusion:
>Some of the stuff the bodyman said made sense. I honestly don't know if
>the rocker panel weld area was ever perfectly straight. If you have a low
>milage car - and your rocker panels are straight - I would highly recommend
>SFC for the long term regidity of your car. At the very least keep an eye
>on this list for differing opionions on this.
It is good advice. The only reason my '89 GT dosen't is I autocross it
where the rules don't allow such things and now with about 100K miles
and 4 years or so of very regular autocrossing my rocker pannels look
like yours do. I am thinking about straightening and re-welding with
more spot welds along that and other seams. I would add SFC's but I
still want to be legal autocrossing it.
10 Dec 1993
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
On Dec 8, Cliff Koch wrote:
> Skod asked about when magnetic guages were first put into Mustangs. The
> shop manual for my '88 indicates that the gauges are magnetic. I have not
> actually seen this with my own eyes, but it's probably true.
>
> Bummer. I had hoped the regulator was the cause of my gauge woes. Now
> I have to figure out some other way to get at least marginally accurate
> gauges...
Ok, thanks to all who responded on this query of mine! It sounds like
the magnetic gages might have come into production as a running change
during the '87 model year. The '87 manuals specify that the
IVR/thermoelectric gages are still used, but I have also heard from
some folks with late '87s that have the magnetic gages.
So: if you are interested in replacing your IVR with a 7805 to improve
intrumentation accuracy, it appears that that modification only
applies to 1979-86 and _some_ 1987 cars. When you pull the gage
cluster out, you can tell. If there's a little silver rectangular
module about 1" by 2" by 1/2" thick attached to the flex-circuit on
the cluster by a screw and an overgrown 9-volt battery snap connector,
that's the IVR, and it is not your friend. The gages on IVR-equipped
cars will also have only 2 terminals attached to the flex circuit.
These cars can use an esxternal solid-state 5-volt regulator for the
gages to good effect.
If the gages on your cluster have 3 terminals, you have magnetic
gages, and this fix is not applicable. I haven't yet played with an
'88 -or-later car, but there's got to be something that can be done. A
fellow lister has loaned me a takeoff gage cluster to play with, so
I'll look into it. In my copious free time, of course.
10 Dec 1993
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
mustang@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
On Dec 10, Dirk Broer wrote:
> Maybe this is the problem... the mustang is the only car I own ( I have 7 )
> that has less than 100K miles on it. Would you expect the same build from
> a Nissan? at the same price...
The car that you and I now have is not much changed from the 1979-era
Pinto-powered secretary's car that the 3rd-generation Mustang
really started life to be. It was overdesigned in that role, which is
just about the only thing that made sliding the ever-more-powerful V8
into it at all feasible. The basic stampings, which are remarkably
unchanged over the life of the 3rd generation cars, were never
designed to hold up to a 350hp, Vortech-blown, slick shod dragstrip
stomper or road-course terror.
I'm sure that the chassis guys who drew the plans for the tooling for
the basic K frame, the rocker seams, the C-pillar reinforcements and
all the other bits back in '76-77 have gotten a lot of satisfaction
out of seeing how well their designs have stood the tests of time.
They've probably also had more than their share of sleepless nights
trying to figure out if the old tub would hold up to the stresses of
100 more horsepower, 500 more pounds, and 2 inches more contact patch
width than it was originally designed for. Not to mention trying to
figure if the old tooling would last for yet another year and another
100,000 shots. I'm sure that if you and I were to have walked into
that Dearborn drawing office in mid-1976 and told the engineers what
we were going to be doing with their lightweight Mustang III sometime
in the '90s, they'd have pretty much died laughing.
Would I expect this kind of build quality from a Nissan? Well, the
Nissan guys have much less inertia, and can tool up an whole new
bodyshell much faster. I'm just pretty astounded that the basic Fox
shell has done as well as it has, for little more investment than
changing the number of spots that are hit by the robotic welders from
year to year. If we had to pay for a whole new tub and all its
tooling, we would certainly get a better fit and finish, and even a
more rigid design. But it'd cost about as much as a 300ZX, probably.
It all comes back to _cost_, in the end, and that's what got us all
involved with these cars instead of 944s or 911s or some other foreign
toy.
If you look at a gutted '79 tub, and a gutted '92 tub, you'll be
pretty astounded at the commonality of the stampings. That is both a
blessing and a curse.
> Well I have to take issue with this. For a long time the v-8 outsold the 4
> banger. So much so that Ford basically sold escorts below cost to keep
> within CAFE standards ( not just the mustang - but add the Lincoln cars ).
That's Ford's good luck, and ours as well. It was never really
intended that the 3rd generation Mustang would be the muscle car of
choice for the 90's. It was supposed to be _gone_ by 1984, replaced by
lightweight, fuel efficient, front-wheel-drive lozengemobiles. In the
late '70s, it seemed pretty unlikely that a big inefficient
tire-ripping V8 powered anachonism had any chance of catching on
again. Fuel was expensive and getting more so, emissions laws were
impossible and getting more so, and by the mid-80's Congress was
certain to make working on your own car illegal anyway, right? I
remember the mid '70s. All too well.
When it became clear that performance wasn't a thing of the past and
we enthusiasts hadn't simply folded up and died, the Fox platform
showed enough flexibility to become the car that could serve the
market. But Ford pretty well got dragged into it by the customer base,
not driven into it by an engineering group hell-bent on making the
perfect '90s musclecar. Even SVO and later SVT haven't been able to do
more than dip a toe into "doing it right". So the changes to the tub
have been very cost-effective bracketry changes, the odd gusset here
and there, mix and match from the corporate parts bin, and a new suit
of skins every couple of years. Cheap performance, with ever-narrowing
margins left in the basic design. This is why it can compete on cost
with the GM F-body: they haven't fixed what isn't _that_ broke. By
some definition of "broke". But the margins are right slim, these
days.
> As the market for mustangs declined (early 90's) I suspect people that were
> interested in grocery getting - were not looking at a rear wheel drive,
> frankly unsophisticated car, when they could get a front wheel drive
> alternative. If you lived in the snow-belt, and you needed a daily driver
> - for lets say your mom what car would you tell her to buy? ( My mother
> bought a Z28 - go figure ). I suspect a Taurus or such would fit the bill
> better. Now if your looking at Economy type smaller cars - there are
> probalby half a dozen other cars that would be all around better.
True statement. We've all twisted the Fox's tail out about as far as
we can, and it's showing. But those of us who love anachronisms are
still lining up at the dealer... And there are a vast number of people
who lined up and bought the "image" of the anachronism, with the
little 4 or 6.
> I would tend to argue that 75% number but anyway...
Over the life of the Fox platform? I wouldn't. Even among the V8 powered
population, I'd wager that the vast majority of the cars have never seen the
far side of 5000 RPM. That's just the reality of selling the "performance
image". The 1% of the buyers who are real nutcases like us help sell all the
rest of the cars to the folks who just want to be pushed back into their seats
twice a year when they pull out to pass. And they like the exhaust note. And
the stereo. And the rear wing and the totally nonfunctional "ground effects"
frippery.
>From a man who found out his perfect "baby" isn't so perfect anymore (was
> it ever?)
Hey, look at it this way- since the bloom is off the rose, maybe we track
loonies can talk you into going out and _really_ enjoying the car...
Of course this is coming from a guy who put the first chip in the pristine,
virginal paint on his new '86 by spinning off into the potato stones in Turn 6
at the old Bryar at speed. When the car was about 3000 miles old. You've
fallen in with a bad, bad bunch here, sir!
That chip's still there, too, and worn proudly. The old Pony holds its own
pretty well, if I do say so myself. It is _what it is_, and it's up to us to
make it what we want. And there's the fun, and the challenge.
Hey, before I forget it- Happy Holidays to all!
13 Dec 1993
andrem@pyramid.com (Andre Molyneux)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
Did some more reading in the Probst Ford Fuel Injection book this weekend, and
have a question:
As discussed recently in this forum, the 5.0 does not have knock sensors. Why
is it felt that they're not necessary on this engine? The book indicates that
they're not just confined to engines that run under boost, so why do some
engines have them and others not?
One interesting tidbit from the book is that the EEC-IV can (I assume this is
only on engines with knock sensors) adjust the timing for each cylinder
individually - e.g. if only one cylinder is knocking, it's timing is retarded
while the others are allowed to continue on as they were.
Another is that the idle air bypass stays _wide open_ during cruising, which
isn't what you'd expect by it's name. When you lift, the bypass will slowly
close to allow engine braking, after having provided enough air to assure that
combustion of all fuel is complete to keep emissions down. When the engine
gets down to idle speed, the bypass will open to maintain the correct idle.
I haven't finished the book yet, but so far I haven't found anything that says
the system runs open-loop most of the time, as someone else on the list
indicated. A number of the different engine "strategies" run open loop, but
the strategy in use the vast majority of the time (warm cruise) runs closed-
loop.
This book is an interesting read, and well worth the price Ken got them for us
at (for that matter, it would have been a worthwhile buy at retail price).
The book isn't Mustang specific, so one must try to piece together which bits
apply to the 5.0 and which don't (there's also a fair amount of time devoted
to Mazda electronic engine control for the Probe, and even a little on Nissan
for the Villager). I have found a few minor inconsistancies (one page claims
that long intake runners are better at high RPM, the next says short runners
are better), but nothing major.
14 Dec 1993
bkelley@pms706.pms.ford.com (Brian Kelley)
mustangs%hpda.cup.hp.com@cup.hp.com
A friend of mine installs custom sub-frame connectors in his spare time. I
have described the design on the list numerous times, so I won't go into it
now. Essentially, I don't think you can do much better.
One of his customers was just in an accident. His '92 LX 5.0 was
hit hard from behind (by a Jeep) and pushed into the rear of another Jeep.
The damage was Very substantial. The initial estimate (just taking a
quick look - not getting into the engine (the water pump was pushed
through the radiator, header damage, etc)) was $6,800.
He was just at the body shop where they had the car on the frame jig/machine.
The Sub-frame connectors are still straight. The frame shop said they
were the only thing that kept the car from being a total write-off. They
said the floorpan would have significantly submarined without them and
the car would have really twisted. Unfortunately, like most all sub-frame
connectors, they cover some of the reference holes used to check the
chassis straightness. The more they look, the more the estimate is going
up.
With that much damage, he is hoping they'll just total the car. I know
I wouldn't want it back. So it was somewhat of a good news/bad news.
The bad news is the car hasn't been totaled (yet). The good news is that
they did minimize the damage and possibly save the driver from serious
injury..
15 Dec 1993
bkelley@pms706.pms.ford.com (Brian Kelley)
mustangs%hpda.cup.hp.com@cup.hp.com
The new Mustang spindles do really look like a big win for serious racing.
These units feature a hub, unlike the old spindles. The old spindles
pretty much let the spindle snout take all of the loads, with the retainer
nut only a little bit more than finger tight.
The nut on the new spindle is torqued to 200 lbs/ft. One disadvantage is
that worn out bearings will cost you more money. The new spindle is much
stiffer. A bit of work will be necessary in order to adapt the old
struts, but not much.
I feel that I will have to upgrade to those spindles (assuming I don't go to
an SLA, which I am working very hard on designing) to handle the loads I'll
get next season with the 13x25 front slicks.
14 Dec 1993
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
On Dec 14, Joseph R. Granto wrote:
> How hard is it to remove the dash? Specifically, what would I need
> to doin order to replace the clear plastic instrument panel on a '92
> LX 5.0?
I assume that you refer to the clear styrene lens that covers all the
gages, the speedo, and the tach in the instrument cluster. That can be
done without disassembling the dash. You just have to pull the screws
that hold the instrument cluster trim in place (there are supposed to
be 5 on the newer cars: 2 on top, and on the bottom, just like on the
older cars). The cluster itself is then held into the instrument
panel by 4 screws at the edges, just like on the older cars. Once
those are pulled, you can pull out the cluster a few inches and
disconnect the speedo cable (by squeezing the flat on the quick
disconnect collar), and then disconnect the two electrical connectors.
The cluster is then free.
The lens and gage mask assembly on the late cars is held in place with
10 screws. The clear lens itself is thermally welded in place on the
mask, which makes it unpleasant to remove. The lens and mask should be
replaced as a unit. You might even be able to replace it without even
removing the cluster from the dash at all- you may have access to it
with the cluster still firmly mounted. I haven't yet played with the
post-'87 clusters, but the '86 cluster can be serviced in place.
Good luck finding the replacement lens and mask assembly, though.
That's the hardest part of the job. And let this serve as something of
a warning to all Mustang owners: the styrene lens is very, very
scratch prone, and also prone to crazing and cracking if excessive
force is used on it. So never use anything even slightly abrasive to
clean the dust off of it (this includes grinding the dust itself into
the surface with a dry rag!), and definitely don't _lean_ on the face
with your cloth while cleaning it.
> What is that electric motor sound I hear coming from the rear of the
> car? Without the stereo on it is very noticeable. My guess is that
> I am hearing the fuel pump, but I did not think it would be that loud.
It is the fuel pump. Listen to it, and get to know its sound. It's
pretty uncommon, but one of the symptoms of a failing fuel pump is the
gradual increase of the noise level from the pump over time. Then,
when you listen to you new pump humming quietly back there, you
realize that you should have listened more closely....
> Many thanks to those who responded to my question about cheap mods.
> I noticed no one mentioned the performance PROMs, and wondered why.
> Are they not worth the money? What about an MSD ignition; that too
> went unmentioned.
There aren't a heck of a lot of true cheap (defined as less than $50)
mods. The EEC-IV is pretty well optimized to do its job given
production constraints. Generally speaking, it is easier and much
cheaper to work _with_ it than to hack it. So the usual tuner's
techniques apply- improve the airflow in and out, and crank on a
little additional initial advance. Make sure that the engine
controller is still happy with what the sensors tell it, and you're
off to the races.
Unless you are starting to do some really radical things, MSD boxes
don't buy you much. They certainly have their uses for over-the-top
motors, but for a motor in a "cheap" near-stock state of tune, the
money could be better invested elsewhere.
If you really want to wring serious gains out of the powertrain, a
quote from Smokey Yunick comes to mind. "It's like what the monkey
said when he pissed on the cash register: This is gonna run into some
money..."
One _really_ cheap "mod" that nobody has mentioned: make sure that the
throttle butterfly is actually wide open at WOT on the pedal.
Production tolerances being what they are, this sometimes gets missed.
I have seen a car that had the throttle plate at about 80% with the
pedal matted. That annoyed the owner quite a bit...
Dirk Broer wrote:
> At one time all 5-speed 5.0's came with 3.08 rears. The Cobra's I
> believe could be had with 3.27's. Automatics came with 2.73 but the
> 3.08's could be had as an option.
Other way around, actually. The base ratios are the 2.73s for the
5-speed, and the 3.27s for the auto. There are some 3.08 5-speed cars
out there, but not many.
16 Dec 1993
"Richard A. Rybka"
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
Allow me to introduce myself, my name is Richard A. Rybka, and I'm
a late model Mustang fanatic.
I noticed a lot of questions concerning gear ratios for the rear
axle. Super Ford Magazine (August 1993) gives the Traction Lock
Codes that are available from the factory. Look for these codes on
the vehicle certification label on the drivers side door. Look for
the letter code above the word "axle".
E........3.27:1
M........2.73:1
Z........3.08:1
"If there's a number instead of the letter, that means
the axle is a conventional differential. If your car still has the
axle identification tag intact, the ratio will be stamped on it. If
it's a Traction-Lok, the ratio number will have an L in it" (Super
Ford P. 101)
For those of you with used cars, someone could have changed the
gears and those codes would mean nothing. There is a simple way to
determine your ratio. Get a buddy, and jack up the rear of your car
(use saftey stands). One person get under the drive shaft and one
sit in front of the tire. One person rotate the tire ONE complete
revelution, while the other counts the number of times the drive
shaft rotates. Putting a chalk mark along the driveshaft and the
differential housing, this will help in determining the fractional
turns of the drive shaft.
If the drive shaft turns twice (rotating the tire once) you have
a 2.00:1 ratio. If it rotates three times, you have a 3.00:1 and so
on.... Most gears will have fractional parts i.e. 3.73 will result
in the driveshaft turning three and a quarter turns.
20 Dec 1993
peted@roadrunner.pictel.com (Peter DelMastro)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
Hi everyone,
I was looking through the wiring diagrams at the back of Probst's
book and I noticed that all the engines were very similar. For
example, the throttle position sensor (TP) is wired to pins 47,
26, and 46 on all the engines. So, I got to wondering if some of
the gadgets that are shipped with other engines can be fit to
my 5.0 ... like the knock sensor ... it uses pin 23 (KS) and
pin 46 (SIG RTN). Pin 23 on the mustang is unused ... do you think
if I were to wire in a knock sensor that the processor would use
its inputs and retard timing ?
Also, does anyone know where I can get more detailed info on the
sensors and processor ? Probst talks about many of the sensors
in detail, but some (like the vehicle speed sensor) he just glosses
over. Similarly, he doesn't discuss some of the signals that the
processor generates (like DOL on late model 4.6L 4V motors).
Lastly, about a week ago some folks were talking about something
called the Sunpro tester for the ECC-IV. I've never heard of this
tool can someone tell me about it ... what it does, how much it
costs, etc
20 Dec 1993
andrem@pyramid.com (Andre Molyneux)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
On Dec 20, 11:20, Peter DelMastro wrote:
> I was looking through the wiring diagrams at the back of Probst's
> book and I noticed that all the engines were very similar. For
> example, the throttle position sensor (TP) is wired to pins 47,
> 26, and 46 on all the engines. So, I got to wondering if some of
> the gadgets that are shipped with other engines can be fit to
> my 5.0 ... like the knock sensor ... it uses pin 23 (KS) and
> pin 46 (SIG RTN). Pin 23 on the mustang is unused ... do you think
> if I were to wire in a knock sensor that the processor would use
> its inputs and retard timing ?
I'd like to know this myself. However, I'd be willing to be that
there's a specialized PROM for each application, and that the 5.0L
Mustang's PROM tells the processor to ignore the knock sensor input.
Be nice if I was wrong, though.
20 Dec 1993
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
> I am running the SVO large oil cooler on my 87'GT, and am having
> impact problems with the sway bar and the filter. At present I am
> using a Fram PH8A. Anybody have this problem before? Anybody
> recommend a better size?
I've heard of this before. There is a half-height filter that is
usable in that application. The standard FRAM HP-1 race filter (which
is the heavy-duty equivalent of the PH8A) is 3.7" dia by 5.9" long,
and fits a 3/4"-16 stub. Pegasus carries a half-height Fram filter
that is 3.7" dia by 2.85" long that ought to give you all the
clearance you want. They get $7 for it. I don't have the FRAM part
number, unfortunately, but it certainly has one- you could buy one
from Pegasus to get the number, and then buy future ones from your
local jobber. There is also a Lucas filter that's only 3.75" long.
Spend a little time with the Fram catalog and you'll probably find the
right part.
I still think that going to a remote filter head would be a better
solution. After I did this, and discovered the joys of being able to
chage oil without drowning the power steering valve body in oil each
time, I've never looked back...
> I also found that my @*!$ torque arm is
> bending where the sloped lower section's forwardmost weld ends. It is
> bending in the direction of the drivers side. Any ideas on THIS? The
> Panhard rod looks straight, could it be flexing? (Griggs/CCM) Could
> this be a re result of the axle hop I have been having when things are
> way loose? Perhaps the very steep incline I go up ,(at an angle), to
> get into my parking lot. Steep enought to rub 225/50/15s on the inner
> fender/trunk wall. Any ideas would be helpful!
Could be. The easiest way to bend a torque arm is with big wheel
hop if you have a very powerful motor. One phenomenon that really
makes this much, much worse is if you still have the stock rear lower
control arms with those horrible oval rubber bushings. The torque arm
should not be taking the thrust loads from acceleration. That job
should be done by the lower arms. Unfortunately, with those huge soggy
bushings in there, the axle can twist a considerable amount if one
rear tire has good bite and the other doesn't, and that will apply a
bending moment to the arm in its weakest direction. I'd almost
guarantee that it is the soft lower arm bushings that are the culprit.
You might give some thought to the P/T lower arms, polyurethane
bushings, or some aftermarket arm to limit this problem. But get
directly in touch with Bruce Griggs and ask him. He'll help you sort
it out!
The Panhard doesn't really figure into it, although if you're getting
tire rub you are definitely deflecting _something_. You should start
checking into the source of the flex. It's probably the tub itself,
and not the panhard ot its mountings.
20 Dec 1993
Troy Wecker
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
I discovered something in the '93 Ford Emissions EEC-IV manual that
may have not been covered here before. In the Quick Test section
there is a discrete note that says (paraphrased): *Disconnect the
negative battery cable for a minimum of 5 minutes anytime an emissions
component is replaced to clear the KAM (Keep Alive Memory). This will
result in engine performance and driveability issues for about 10
miles (dependent on application). The KAM reprograms to compensate
for component variability*. There is also a note in another paragraph
on how to clear the trouble codes from memory with out clearing the
KAM (disconnect jumper for KOEO EEC self test while it is underway).
I noticed this when I cleared the KAM after removing my air intake
silencer (resonator). My car lost a lot of low end power (I estimate
about 20 HP). After almost exactly 10 miles of in town driving the
low end power was back. In fact it was so sudden that when I left on
a red to green light I had wheel spin that wasn't there the previous
light under the same throttle application.
This is a very important thing for those racing their cars to
remember if they disconnect the battery for some reason. My guess is
that the EEC-IV goes to FMEM (Failure Mode Effects Management) and
runs closed loop with set parameters until the KAM is re-programmed.
This may be a leaner fuel mixture, timing offset changes and
other items.
20 Dec 1993
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
On Dec 20, Richard Pedersen wrote:
> Wheels: He has the stock 14" steel wheels with 195-75R14 tires. What
> width and offset are these wheels? Were there any wheel options in '89?
> (The 15x7 wheels were an option around '92 but they are not legal for an
> '89--I hate SCCA rules.)
Two size options are listed in the spec book: 14x5.0, 4 on 4.25, 1.12"
offset, and 14x5.5, 4 on 4.25, 1.12" offset. Both are spec'd with the
195-75R14 tires.
> Struts: Are the 5.0 struts dimensionally the same as the 4cyl. struts? He
> would like to use the take-offs from my 5.0 to get a stiffer strut. I am
> thinking that the 4cyl. might use the spindles and small brakes that were
> on the '85 era GT's. Is this correct? This would mean that the bolt
> interface to the spindles is too narrow on the 5.0 struts.
That's correct. You're basically screwed, unless you find some
take-off Konis from an '86-and-earlier car. That car does have the
10"x.810" brakes, with the small calipers, and the wierd pads. I
shudder every time I think about those old pads... Motorsport
M-2001-D.
> Shocks: The shock lower attachment point to the axle on his car uses a
> single torx bolt loaded in single shear. This is different than the
> bracket bolted to the axle with the shock bolted in double shear to the
> bracket as is the case on my car. Why the extra bracket? Is this just a
> function of attachment to a 7.5" vs. an 8.8". Should I get this bracket to
> attach stiffer shocks?
That would not be wrong. If you're going to pound on the car, that
should get beefed up. The double-shear lug is a bolt-on, and is
probably below the protest threshold of all but the most anal
autoxer...
> Sway bars: His car doesn't have a rear sway bar. Do any of the 4cyl.
> Mustangs? It is legal to go to the large GT front bar but this doesn't
> sound real smart if there is no rear bar. Of course, I have been told that
> with the unusual attachment of the rear bar, it does very little. I guess
> we will just have to experiment here.
Dunno- but that is _well_ within the realm of mods that will get the
protest-happy slobbering masses to climb him like a tree. Better find
out from whoever keeps all that stuff straight at the SCCA.
21 Dec 1993
peted@roadrunner.pictel.com (Peter DelMastro)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
Hi everyone,
Yesterday I asked ...
> I was looking through the wiring diagrams at the back of Probst's
> book and I noticed that all the engines were very similar. For
> example, the throttle position sensor (TP) is wired to pins 47,
> 26, and 46 on all the engines. So, I got to wondering if some of
> the gadgets that are shipped with other engines can be fit to
> my 5.0 ... like the knock sensor ... it uses pin 23 (KS) and
> pin 46 (SIG RTN). Pin 23 on the mustang is unused ... do you think
> if I were to wire in a knock sensor that the processor would use
> its inputs and retard timing ?
I got a number of good responses (thankyou all) including one from
from Claude Chambellan who suggested I talk to a tech at SVO. I did
and the tech told me that the ECC-IV in the mustang isn't programmed
to understand the knock sensor (or any other non-stock) input :-(
Well, I'm not entirely convinced that FORD would build different
ucode for each engine configuration (it would seem, to me, easier to
build common ucode and then just not attach different sensors).
So, I'd like to experiment some with a live ECC-IV. Does anyone
have one they'd let go cheap ? Maybe after they've updated to the
new Cobra processor ...
21 Dec 1993
Scott.Griffith@Eng.Sun.COM
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
On Dec 15, Jeff Cross wrote:
> Has anyone tried or care to comment on putting GT40 heads on an
> otherwise stock NON-MASS AIR 5.0? I do not have the time or money
> at this point to upgrade to mass air before I fix the heads and I have
> to assume it will be ~3 months before I will...
and then:
> Any one recommend better ignition bits? I am pretty seriously considering
> a MSD 6A and the Blaster Coil...
Well, nobody else has responded to this, so I guess that I will. I'd
have to say that I think that it's false economy to bolt random trick
stuff on the motor without doing the basic work that you really want.
The MAF conversion isn't that much more expensive that the MSD box,
the coil and a set of plug wires. Shop around- I've seen it for under
$400. And yet, in the long haul, it will contribute a great deal more
to your tuning flexibility. Frankly, I'd bet that you would get more
bang for your buck from the MAF conversion and a good set of headers,
and a couple hours of grinder work when you freshen your heads, than
you'll get from the nifty MSD box. It'll make it much, much easier to
get good results when you do upgrade to spiffy heads or whatnot.
I'd do the conversion first, and then upgrade to bigger/better/tricker
components with time, as you can afford it. Matter of fact, I'm
getting ready to do exactly that. I've been running my stock '86
powertrain all these years, without even changing the headers.
Partially to make a point, and partially because I "couldn't afford"
the MAF upgrade. Well, now I want more power, and I know that that's
the easiest first step for us speed density folks who want more oof
without having to do all manner of tweaking to fool the existing
system. Face it- this is one aspect of the computer controlled
generation that Ford got exactly right!
Sorry to be a contrary voice, but a lot of folks have learned the
expensive way that unless you have access to the right facilities, and
a lot of time on your hands, the MAF conversion is the easy way to go.
It's cheaper than one day on the dyno...
21 Dec 1993
rmwise@mcigate.apdev.cs.mci.com (Bob_Wise)
mustangs%hpda.cup.hp.com@cup.hp.com
To echo a couple of things Scott has said...
The MSD will mostly do you good only if you will be exceeding the
"normal" RPM ranges that the stock system is designed for. Really,
the stock ignition is pretty good until you start running in the 6000+
rpm range a lot. I would guess that the stock system is very iffy
over 6500rpms. In my car, I've run it to redline (@6250) many times
without ignition problems.
I have had no problem running an open exhaust with headers on my '88
speed density system (road racing). By most accounts, the speed
density system is most sensitive to cam changes (specifially duration
changes). If you stick with the stock cam, you should be able to use
a good exhaust, and maybe even the GT-40 heads with minimal loss of
idle quality.
If you are only changing the exhaust for now, don't spend the money
on the MAF, and don't spend the money on the MSD.
Of course, that nice red box does look good under the hood... :-)
I would disagree with Scott a little bit, I would say, upgrade components
until your idle quality sucks worse than you can stand, then upgrade
to the MAF. But then, I'm somewhat notorious for being able to stand
race-car trade-offs in a street car.
On Dec 21, 14:48, Scott Griffith, Sun Microsystems Lumpyware wrote:
> Subject: Re: Intro - Ignition Question
> On Dec 15, Jeff Cross wrote:
>
> > Has anyone tried or care to comment on putting GT40 heads on an
> > otherwise stock NON-MASS AIR 5.0? I do not have the time or money
> > at this point to upgrade to mass air before I fix the heads and I have
> > to assume it will be ~3 months before I will...
>
> and then:
>
> > Any one recommend better ignition bits? I am pretty seriously considering
> > a MSD 6A and the Blaster Coil...
>
> Well, nobody else has responded to this, so I guess that I will. I'd
> have to say that I think that it's false economy to bolt random trick
> stuff on the motor without doing the basic work that you really want.
> The MAF conversion isn't that much more expensive that the MSD box,
> the coil and a set of plug wires. Shop around- I've seen it for under
> $400. And yet, in the long haul, it will contribute a great deal more
> to your tuning flexibility. Frankly, I'd bet that you would get more
> bang for your buck from the MAF conversion and a good set of headers,
> and a couple hours of grinder work when you freshen your heads, than
> you'll get from the nifty MSD box. It'll make it much, much easier to
> get good results when you do upgrade to spiffy heads or whatnot.
>
> I'd do the conversion first, and then upgrade to bigger/better/tricker
> components with time, as you can afford it. Matter of fact, I'm
> getting ready to do exactly that. I've been running my stock '86
> powertrain all these years, without even changing the headers.
> Partially to make a point, and partially because I "couldn't afford"
> the MAF upgrade. Well, now I want more power, and I know that that's
> the easiest first step for us speed density folks who want more oof
> without having to do all manner of tweaking to fool the existing
> system. Face it- this is one aspect of the computer controlled
> generation that Ford got exactly right!
>
> Sorry to be a contrary voice, but a lot of folks have learned the
> expensive way that unless you have access to the right facilities, and
> a lot of time on your hands, the MAF conversion is the easy way to go.
> It's cheaper than one day on the dyno...
>
> -skod
22 Dec 1993
sde.mdso.vf.ge.com!wist (Call me Al)
hotrod@dixie.com (The Hotrod List)
> Bundy, thanks for the help. I'd appreciate that VIN nnumber info. Someone
already told me about some VIN number info, but that was for a Mustang. If you
have the codings specifically for a Cougar, I'd appreciate it!
> --Erik
Here is the Vehicle Certification Label info for the Cougar -- have fun!
(should be accurate, but there could be typos...)
*******************
1967-1969 Cougar
*******************
VEH ID X X XX X XXXXXX
index (far left = 1)
1) Model Year
2) Assembly Plant
3-4) Body Serial Code
5) Engine Code
6-11) Consecutive Unit Number
BODY XXX
(see below)
COLOR X
(too many to list)
TRIM XX
(too many to list)
DATE XXX
Month First year Second year
Jan A N
Feb B P
Mar C Q
Apr D R
May E S
Jun F T
Jul G U
Aug H V
Sep J W
Oct K X
Nov L Y
Dec M Z
DSO (District or District and special equip code)
(see below)
AXLE X (A number indicates conventional while a letter indicates
limited slip)
Number Ratio (1967)
1 3.00:1
2 2.83:1
3 3.20:1
4 3.25:1
5 3.50:1
6 2.80:1
A 3.00:1
C 3.20:1
D 3.25:1
E 3.50:1
Number Ratio (1968)
1 2.75:1
2 2.79:1
4 2.83:1
5 3.00:1
6 3.20:1
7 3.25:1
8 3.50:1
9 3.10:1
E 3.00:1
F 3.20:1
G 3.25:1
H 3.50:1
TRANS X
1==>3 spd man
2==>Overdrive (1967 only)
3==>3 spd man (1967 only)
5==>4 spd man
W==>C4 automatic
U==>C6 automatic
*******************
1970 - 1973 Cougar
*******************
VEH ID XXXXXXXXXXX
index (far left = 1)
1) Model Year
2) Assembly Plant
3-4) Body Serial Code
5) Engine Code
6-11) Consecutive Unit Number
BODY XXX
(see below)
COLOR X
(too many to list)
TRIM XX
(too many to list)
AXLE X
Conventional Lim Slip Ratio
0(1970) 2.50:1
2 K 2.75:1
3 L(1973) 2.79:1
4(1970-1972) M 2.80:1
5(1970) 2.83:1
6 O 3.00:1
7(1970) 3.10:1
7(1972) 3.18:1
7(1973) 3.40:1
8(1970) 3.20:1
9 R 3.25:1
A S 3.50:1
B 3.07:1
C(1970) 3.08:1
F(1970) X 2.33:1
G(1972-1973) 3.55:1
H(1972) 3.78:1
V 3.91:1
W(1970) 4.30:1
Y(1971) 4.11:1
TRANS X
1==>3-spd man
5==>4-sp man (wide ratio)
E==>4-sp man (1972-1973)
6==>4-sp man (close ratio)
V==>semi-auto stick shift
W==>automatic (C4)
U==>automatic (C6)
X==>automatic (FMX)
Z==>automatic (C6 special)
DSO (District/special equip.)
(see below)
*******************
DSO
*******************
11==>Boston 33==>Cleveland
15==>New York 34==>Detroit
16==>Philadelphia 41==>Chicago
17==>Washington 42==>St. Louis
21==>Atlanta 46==>Twin Cities
22==>Dallas 51==>Denver
23==>Jacksonville 52==>Los Angeles
26==>Memphis 53==>Oakland
31==>Buffalo 54==>Seattle
32==>Cincinnati 84==>Home Office Reserve
90==>Export
*******************
Model Year
*******************
7==>1967
8==>1968
9==>1969
0==>1970
1==>1971
2==>1972
3==>1973
*******************
Assembly Plant
*******************
A==>Atlanta L==>Michigan Truck
B==>Oakville (Canada) N==>Norfolk
C==>Ontario Truck P==>Twin Cities
D==>Dallas R==>San Jose
E==>Mahwah S==>Pilot Plant (67-69) Allen Park (70-73)
F==>Dearborn T==>Metuchen
G==>Chicago U==>Louisville
H==>Lorain W==>Wayne
J==>Los Angeles X==>St. Thomas
K==>Kansas City Y==>Wixom
Z==>St. Louis
*******************
Body Codes
*******************
Body Serial Code Body Style Code
91 65A 2-door hardtop bucket seat
91 65C 2-door hardtop bench seat
91 65D 2-door hardtop bucket seat
91 65B 2-door hardtop bench seat luxury
92 76A Convertable bucket seat
92 76D Convertable bucket seat
93 65B 2-door hardtop XR-7 bucket seat
93 65F 2-door hardtop XR-7 bucket seat
94 76B Convertable XR-7 bucket seat
94 76F Convertable XR-7 bucket seat
*******************
Engine Codes
*******************
Engine Codes (1967)
C==>289-2V 3==>289-2V Low Comp
A==>289-4V Premium Fuel K==>289-4V Hi-Perf.
Y==>390-2V H==>390-2V
S==>390-4V W==>427-4V Hi-Perf
R==>427-8V Hi-Perf.
Engine Codes (1968)
C==>289-2V F==>302-2V
Y==>390-2V X==>290-2V Premium Fuel
S==>390-4V GT W==>427-4V Hi-Perf
Engine Codes (1969)
F==>302-2V 6==>302-2V low comp
H==>351-2V M==>351-4V
S==>390-4V Q==>428-4V Cobrajet
R==>428-4V Cobrajet Ram Air
Engine Codes (1970)
F==>302-2V R==>428-4V CJ Ram Air
6==>302-2V low comp P==>428-4V Police Premium Fuel
G==>302-4V Boss K==>429-2V
H==>351-2V N==>429-4V
M==>351-4V C==>429-4V CobraJet
Y==>390-2V Regular Z==>429-4V HO
Q==>428-4V Cobrajet J==>429-4V CobraJet Ram Air
Engine Codes (1971)
F==>302-2V S==>400-2V
6==>302-2V low comp K==>429-2V
G==>302-4V Boss N==>429-4V
H==>351-2V C==>429-4V CobraJet
M==>351-4V J==>429-4V CobraJet Ram Air
Q==>351-4V GT P==>429-4V Police
Y==>390-2V
Engine Codes (1972)
F==>302-2V R==>351-4V HO
6==>302-2V low comp S==>400-2V
H==>351-2V N==>429-4V
Q==>351-4V P==>429-4V Police
Engine Codes (1973)
F==>302-2V H==>351-2V
N==>429-4V Q==>351-4V Cobrajet
S==>400-2V
28 Dec 1993
stangle@infi.net (Tom Stangler)
Joseph Edward Huesmann banged out on his keyboard.....
* Does anyone have the 2-wire connector that plugs into the back of the
* foglight switch, that they would be willing to sell me? Mine melted...
Having replaced several switches/connectors/wireends on my 87, I feel I can
speak here...er type here.
FORD does offer the connector blocks for their switches, and pigtails (wire
and connector terminal) for repair. I've done this with every one I've
replaced on the 87.
When you have a voltage problem or overheating electrical problem,
look carefully at the contacts in the connector block. You will probably find
one that has been heated and as a result does not make a tight connection on
the back of the switch assembly. Take the time and replace it. Get the pigtail
from FORD and remove the old and solder splice in a replacement. Swap out
the bad with a new one. It will save you greif later.
If you need a new connector block, because the old one melted, take
the p/n off the block and the dealer will be able to get you a replacement.
I had one connector block that melted down so much, I replaced every contact
and the block. The parts are available.
30 Dec 1993
wyvern!neptune!calvin@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com (Calvin Sanders)
mustangs@hpcuoa.sv.itc.hp.com
>Hello Manish and welcome to the list!
>> I just joined the Mustangs list, and I'm looking to buy a Mustang.
>> My preference would be an '87 5.0 GT with manual transmission.
>> However, I can spend a max of $4,000 on the car + insurance, since I'm
>> a "poor college student," and that rules out the late-model GT.
>> So I think I'm looking for a V6/V8 LX from ~84. I'm 21, male, with 1 point
>> on my record, so insurance will be high. I believe an '84 V6 LX + insurance
>> would be under $4K... does that seem about right?
I agree with much good stuff deleted
>Your preference is last but most controllable. I'd say limit your list to the
>'83 - '87 GTs & 5.0 LXs. There are quite a few good buys out there, especially
>this time of the year. You may also find some currently undervalued special
>edition models like '84 GT-350s & SVOs. I won't get on my SVO soapbox now (
>if you want to hear it, mail me privately), but if you're a performance enthus-
>iast, don't be a V8 only type.
If you can find a copy of the December 1993 issue of Super Ford it has a
very good 5.0 Mustang buyers guide article. It lists all of the years from
'79-93 and a good list of the strong and weak points of each and the typical
selling prices. Going by their price lists your $4K target puts you easily
in the '83-86 range, but a $4K '87 would be a very tough find (they list
$5300-$8800 as the typical range for '87's, I have found this about correct
here where I live).
>The '85-86 GTs will probably give you the most bang for the buck, while the 5.0
>LXs of the same year will probably ease the insurance costs, and be less "beat-
>on". You might get lucky and catch an '87 GT from a motivated seller, but don't
>count on anything newer than that. Myself, I'd go for low mileage ( i.e. a
>plain-looking '86 LX 5.0 with 50k miles would get the nod from me over a hot
>looking '87 GT with all the goodies and 95k miles ).
On this note, often teh '85 and '86 cars are grouped together. I think there
should be a big dividing line between them. They look similiar except
for the third brake light they are identical appearing, but everything
else about them is very different. The '85 is the last of the "old" cars
with the 7.5" rear ends and the carburators. The '86 I consider the first
of the newer cars with the 8.8" rear ends and the fuel injection. True
the '85 was the first to have the 7" wide wheels and the upgraded T-5
but they were a transition year. Most people sem to feel that the last of
the carbed cars were a maintenance headache. the last of the 4bbls were
fairly complicated to meet emissions standards and the FI cars simplified
the maintenance. If your plan is on improving the car later the drawbacks
of the '86 are the smaller brakes and the lousy cylinder heads. The '85
has the 7.5 and the carb + the '86 problems. The '84 and earlier cars had
the '85 problems plus a weaker T-5 and narrower rims. the '82 and earlier
are probably more problems and older than you are really interested in.
As a side note to what Jim said, the '86 and later cars have generally
proven to be very good high mileage cars. A friend of mine has >225K miles
on his '86 GT and recently replaced the original clutch and replaced the
heads with a new set of late heads for better performance (take offs from
Diversified products less than a valve job would cost). My '89 GT has
100K miles and has just had a starter replaced and EGR valves replaced.
Both of our cars have been autocrossed regularly throughout their lives.
My point is a used one probably has plenty of life left in it and is a better
buy than an '86 Toyota or whatever.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to Foxbody Tech Index
Go to Foxbody 1994 /part 1